Case Law Details
Tapan Das Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, considered an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was filed with a delay of 118 days, which the assessee attributed to health issues. Relying on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, the Tribunal held that delays supported by sufficient cause should be viewed liberally in the interest of substantial justice and accordingly condoned the delay.
The assessee had originally filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 4,55,242. During limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) by making an addition of Rs. 63,52,589 towards long-term capital gains arising from the sale of land. The NFAC dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee pressed only the ground relating to the Assessing Officer’s refusal to refer the valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order itself recorded the assessee’s request for such a reference. It held that where an assessee disputes the value adopted and seeks a DVO reference, the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to make the reference under Section 50C(2). Rejecting the request was held to be contrary to the statutory provision.
Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with directions to comply with Section 50C(2), obtain the DVO valuation, and frame the assessment afresh. The assessee was also directed to establish the source of the consideration paid for purchasing the property. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (Appeal) [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 23.08.2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2014-15.
2. There is a delay of 118 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee was suffered from health issues due to which Assessee did could not file the appeal on time. Thus, sought for condonation of the delay in filing the present Appeal.
3. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present appeal. The Assessee, in the application for condonation of delay, contended that the Assessee was suffered from health issues due to which Assessee did could not file the appeal on time before the Tribunal within the prescribed time.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 118 days in filing the present appeal.
6. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.4,55,242/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” and Assessment Order came to be passed on 16.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act by making addition to Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land to the tune of Rs.63,52,589/-. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2016, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 23.08.2019, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee only pressed Ground No.5 and contended that the Assessing Officer committed grave error in rejecting the request of the Assessee for referral to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), which is in violation of provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) both have erred in law and passed respective orders in violation of provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. Thus, sought for allowing Ground No.5 of the Assessee’s Appeal.
8. Per Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the Assessee has not proved the source of income and the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus, sought for dismissal of the ground of the Assessee.
9. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. It is evident from the Assessment Order, the Assessee has indeed requested for referring the matter to DVO. However, the Assessing Officer has rejected the request of the Assessee. It is well-settled that when the Assessee disputes the value of consideration and subsequently requests the Assessing Officer for referral to DVO, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to refer the matter to the DVO as per section 50C(2) of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer have violated the said provision of law by rejecting the request of the Assessee for referring the matter to DVO.
10. In view of the above, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to comply with the provision of section 50C(2) of the Act. The Assessee is also directed to prove the source of the consideration paid while purchasing the property in question. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment afresh.
11. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 18.06.2026.
Author Bio
