Amar Narendra Joshi Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The ITAT Mumbai considered an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2018-19. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as unadmitted due to delay in filing. The assessee contended that the assessment under Sections 144, 147, and 144B was completed ex parte during the Covid-19 pandemic without proper service of notices, while the assessee was also dislocated due to redevelopment of his building. The assessment resulted in addition of Rs.41,38,500 under Section 56(2)(x) on account of difference between the stamp duty valuation and the value adopted for purchase of additional area in a redeveloped property.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued only two notices seeking explanation regarding purchase of immovable property and the assessee could not respond due to miscommunication during the severe Covid-19 period. The assessee explained the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) through a condonation application supported by medical certificates. It was argued that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the assessee had a strong case on merits. The assessee further contended that he had received a new residential flat in lieu of surrendering the old flat for redevelopment of the housing project and therefore the transaction did not amount to receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration attracting Section 56(2)(x). Reliance was placed on decisions including Smt. Shashi Yogendra Raj Singhavi v. ITO and Anil Dattaram Pitale v. ITO.
