Stamp Duty Valuation Dispute: ITAT Condones 111-Day Delay in Interest of Fairness, Restores Matter [Read Order]
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not give reasons for not condoning the delay for filing the appeal
![Stamp Duty Valuation Dispute: ITAT Condones 111-Day Delay in Interest of Fairness, Restores Matter [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Stamp-Duty-Stamp-Duty-Valuation-Dispute-ITAT-ITAT-Condones-Delay-in-Interest-of-Fairness-Interest-of-Fairness-Restores-Matter-taxscan.jpg "Stamp Duty Valuation Dispute: ITAT Condones 111-Day Delay in Interest of Fairness, Restores Matter [Read Order]")
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 111-day delay in filing an appeal citing the interest of fairness and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. Vaibhav Vishwanath Surve (assessee) had not filed an Income Tax Return. There was information that the assessee had sold immovable property with three others. The assessee's share in the sale of the...
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 111-day delay in filing an appeal citing the interest of fairness and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
Vaibhav Vishwanath Surve (assessee) had not filed an Income Tax Return. There was information that the assessee had sold immovable property with three others. The assessee's share in the sale of the property comes to Rs. 33,33,333.
India’s New Tax Era Begins – Are You Ready for the Changes? Click Here
The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and completed it under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making an addition of Rs. 61,64,000 as long-term capital gain by adopting the stamp duty valuation.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)[CIT(A)]. The appeal was filed with a delay of 111 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
Are You Filing Tax Appeals the Right Way? Learn the Proper Legal Procedures!, Click Here
Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the land was inherited agricultural land and located within the Coastal Regulation Zone, where construction was prohibited.
The counsel also argued that the AO failed to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as mandated under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and that the AO erred in computing the capital gain.
On the other hand, the counsel for revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and argued that the CIT(A) was right in dismissing the appeal.
India’s New Tax Era Begins – Are You Ready for the Changes? Click Here
The two-member bench comprising Manish Borad ( Accountant Member ) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(A) did not give reasons for not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, which held that procedural delays should not defeat the cause of justice.
The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A), restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration and directed to refer the matter to the DVO. The tribunal also directed the assessee to remain vigilant during the proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
India’s New Tax Era Begins – Are You Ready for the Changes? Click Here
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
