2019 (11) TMI 1226 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 1895 days - Addition u/s 69 - Double additions - HELD THAT - Having filed the cash receipt in the regular returns, the addition made by the AO amounts double addition of same income in the block period as well as in the regular returns of income. Therefore, it causes unnecessary hardship and financial injury to the assessee. The assessee is a small employee in the educational institution and the problem is more so in the case of small assesses. Hence, technical default in not filing the appeal within the time limit should not be a reason for non-condonation of delay and we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of the justice, the delay required to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay. Addition of un-disclosed income - HELD THAT - We have heard both the parties. In the instant case, the assessee has admitted the said income in the regular returns filed for the AYs.2003-04 2004-05 and also filed the acknowledgement copy before us during the course of hearing. This fact was not controverted by the Ld.DR - delete the addition made by the AO.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A), Condonation of delay, Addition of 'un-disclosed income'.

Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A):
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of assessment with a delay of 1895 days. The delay was attributed to the Chartered Accountant who misplaced the appeal papers, leading to the late filing. The assessee argued that there was no malafide intention or willful default, requesting condonation of the delay. The AR highlighted that the income in question was already disclosed in regular returns, causing double taxation and financial injury to the assessee. Various legal precedents, including decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were cited to support the plea for condonation of delay.

Condonation of delay:
The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and requested for condonation. The AR emphasized that the addition made by the AO constituted double taxation of the same income, causing undue hardship to the assessee. The Tribunal, considering the facts and legal arguments presented, opined that technical default in filing the appeal within the time limit should not preclude condonation of delay. Citing the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.

Addition of 'un-disclosed income':
The AO had made additions for 'un-disclosed income' for certain assessment years. The assessee had already admitted this income in the regular returns filed for those years. Relying on a previous decision by a Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in a similar case, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal held in favor of the assessee based on the precedent and the admission of income in the regular returns.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) and deleting the addition of 'un-disclosed income' based on the admission of income in the regular returns and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.