TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1961 ("the Act") dated 16.06.2023 for the A.Y.2016-17. 2. In the above cited appeal, the main grievance of the appellant is that the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Ld.AO and rejected the rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act, stating that the same does not constitute a „mistake apparent from record‟, with regard to the adoption of correct cost of acquisition while computing capital gains and giving benefit u/s 54F of Income Tax Act. Before adjudicating the issue relating to rectification application filed by the appellant u/s 154 of the Act, the Bench has observed that the appeal was filed before the ITAT with a delay of 433 days. Hence, the Ld.AR of the appellant was requested to argue the case on admission o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been mentioned in Form No.35, at Column No.17 while filing the appeal, but the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was uploaded on the system, which is not known to the assessee. After coming to know about the demand raised against him, the appellant has filed this appeal before the ITAT and consequently, there is a delay of 433 days in filing the appeal before ITAT. Since the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to a genuine and bonafide misunderstanding and lack of communication regarding the outcome of the appellate proceedings, the Ld.AR of the appellant has requested the Bench to condone the delay and pass order on merits, because, the delay occurred due to the reasons beyond the control of the appellant and there is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 35 and also acceptance of ITP that partial responsibility lies with him also for not checking the outcome of the appeal. There are several judicial pronouncements to that effect that where an assessee has got a strong case on merits, maximum weightage should be given to take a lenient view with regard to procedural defects as no assessee intends to cause damage to himself and there is no benefit in filing the appeal with delay to any assessee. Anyhow, the delay is quite inordinate, there is negligence on the part of the appellant and ITP also. In view of the same, the Bench decides to condone the delay by levying cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to AP State Legal Services Authority within one month from the date of receipt of this order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncurred with the view of Ld.AO by stating that the alleged mistakes of the Ld.AO do not emanate from the assessment order and as there is no mistake apparent from the record, the application u/s 154 was rightly rejected and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A), an appeal was filed before ITAT and same contentions were raised before the ITAT. The Ld.AR of the appellant has argued that the Ld.AO has taken the cost of acquisition without properly verifying the sale deed, where cost of acquisition of immovable property was mentioned. It was submitted that the appellant has committed a mistake in not appearing before the Ld.AO, but pleaded that whatever the legal rights availabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties. The Ld.DR has also pointed out that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld.AO and did not file any evidence with regard to the cost of acquisition, copy of sale deeds and the consequent capital gains which will arise. The Ld.DR has also pointed out that the assessee neither filed the return of income also despite notices were issued by the Ld.AO, nor did the appellant cooperate with Department by filing relevant evidences and hence the assessment was completed only based on the information available in the Income Tax portal and hence this appeal on rejection of 154 application does not have the legs to stand. It was also argued that section 154 comes into play to a very limited extent and unless there is any mist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrect computation of capital gains was neither examined by the Ld.AO nor the Ld.CIT(A). In view of the same, the issue is remitted back to the file of the Ld.AO and he is directed to get all the documents relating to cost of acquisition of immovable properties and compute the correct capital gains after giving opportunity to the assessee. As far as the deduction u/s 54F is concerned, the eligibility or otherwise may be examined by the Ld.AO and if all the conditions are fulfilled as per the statute, the same may be allowed to the assessee. The claim relating to a new deduction while filing of return of income cannot be entertained by AO in the absence of claim in return of income in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case....