2018 (9) TMI 1022 - AT - Income Tax

Condononation of delay - Held that - According to us, the assessee does not stand to gain anything by filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore, as held by in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT . Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 146 days. As regards the merits of the additions are concerned, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the CIT (A) for re-consideration in accordance with law after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing - Assessee s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeal before CIT (A) and condonation of delay.
2. Merits of the additions made by the AO in the assessment.

Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing Appeal and Condonation of Delay:
The appellant contested the order of the CIT (A) dated 31.08.2016, citing erroneous legal and factual grounds. The delay in filing the appeal by 146 days was a crucial issue. The appellant argued that the delay should have been condoned by the CIT (A) considering the circumstances that led to the delay. The appellant emphasized that the AO's estimation of undisclosed profit and disallowance of payments to landlords were unsustainable. The CIT (A) refused to condone the delay, stating that the appeal was not maintainable as it was based on an agreement by the Managing Partner. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, decided to condone the delay of 146 days. The Tribunal found no benefit for the appellant in filing the appeal belatedly, following the principle established in various legal precedents. The delay was thus condoned, and the appeal was remanded to the CIT (A) for re-consideration after providing the appellant with a fair hearing opportunity.

2. Merits of the Additions by AO:
The AO had estimated a difference of undisclosed profit and disallowed payments made to landlords, resulting in a substantial tax demand. The appellant argued that the income declared during the survey was high, leading to a lower income declaration later. The appellant contended that the agreement made during the survey or assessment proceedings without corroborative evidence should not bind them. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument. The Tribunal, after reviewing the contentions of both parties, decided to remand the issue of additions back to the CIT (A) for a fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case during the re-consideration process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes, condoning the delay in filing the appeal and remanding the issue of additions back to the CIT (A) for a re-consideration in line with the legal principles and after providing the appellant with a fair hearing opportunity.