Shankar Rajashekar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Assessee, a civil contractor, filed his return & the case was selected for scrutiny. AO noticed a deduction claimed u/s 54/54F, assumed that Assessee had sold a property, & since no supporting details were furnished, he computed capital gains & made additions. Assessee’s then representative had even submitted a copy of “sale deed” (actually agreement of sale) & a computation including capital gains.
Before CIT(A), Assessee took a completely different stand—he stated that no property was ever sold, & the capital gains were wrongly declared by his previous representative who confused an “Agreement to Sell” with a registered Sale Deed. He submitted encumbrance certificates, property tax receipts, & other records to show the property was still in his name & under litigation, hence no transfer had happened. However, CIT(A) rejected the claim, stating that if there was a sale deed & money involved, the transaction cannot be denied merely because the property still appears in assessee’s name.
Assessee appealed to ITAT with a delay of 498 days, explaining that being a layman, he was unaware of e-proceedings in faceless appeal & came to know of CIT(A)’s order only after receiving a recovery notice in October 2024. Tribunal found this explanation reasonable & condoned the delay in the interest of justice.
