Yogesh Jashubhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Mere difference in valuation or estimation does not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Ahmedabad ITAT allowed both the quantum & penalty appeals of Assessee, holding that the delay in filing appeal was bona fide & that the addition to Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) was unsustainable in law. Assessee, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), sold his share in agricultural land & declared LTCG of ₹1.56 lakh, adopting cost of acquisition at ₹1.25 lakh (as on 01.04.1981) based on a registered valuer’s report. AO, however, reduced it arbitrarily to ₹60,000 without referring the matter to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), & computed enhanced LTCG of ₹6.19 lakh, making an addition of ₹4.63 lakh. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed Assessee’s appeal in limine, refusing to condone a delay of over seven years, despite the explanation that Assessee was an NRI & became aware of the order only upon visiting India.
Before Tribunal, Assessee submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent, & that both the assessment & penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) were passed without proper opportunity. Tribunal accepted the explanation as a reasonable cause under section 249(3), citing Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471, SC) & Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798, SC), & directed a liberal & justice-oriented approach to condonation.
