Mahavir Prashad Jain Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes by setting aside the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal first condoned a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee’s explanation that, being an elderly person, he had missed the email containing the CIT(A)’s order and became aware of it only when his counsel checked the income-tax portal. The Tribunal observed that there was no malice or gross negligence on the part of the assessee and held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.
The reassessment arose after the Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee, along with seven co-owners, had sold a property and allegedly received consideration higher than that disclosed in the registered sale deeds. The AO relied on an agreement to sell dated 13.02.2018 and concluded that the assessee had understated the sale consideration. Accordingly, the AO computed long-term capital gains by adopting the consideration mentioned in the agreement and made an addition of ₹32,48,375 as undisclosed long-term capital gains. The assessee denied entering into the agreement relied upon by the Department and claimed that the property had been sold only for the amount reflected in the registered sale deeds.
