TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, forgo any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The facts in brief are that the in this case information has been received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 1,53,11,000/- from various parties. On perusal of the bank statement, there is a cash deposit in the bank on the preceding day of the day of entry given. Hence, it was presumed that the assessee has given cash to the parties and has taken the cheques after paying commission at prevailing rates i.e. from 1 to 2% of amount involved. Hence, the assessee has given a commission of Rs. 1,38,114/- @ 1.5% of amount involved. hence the assessee has given a commission of Rs. 1,38,114/- @ 1.5% of the amount involved in the entries taken from the parties. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 93,45,714/- )Rs. 92,07,600 + Rs. 1,38,114) was considered to be the undisclosed income of the assessee which was added back to the income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act and AO completed the assessment at Rs. 94,45,720/- vided his order dated 27.12.2010 passed u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pired. iii) Further, as per the same certificate, the assessee was discharged on 21.1.2018 and advised bed rest of 14 weeks, which would have expired on 15.5.2018. Even then the assessee did not file appeal till 8.10.2018. Therefore, even the medical certificate submitted by the assesse does not explain the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, he relied upon the following case laws:- a) M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016 TIOL 3158 HC-Mum-IT) wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that when there is no explanation given for delay in filing of appeal, such delay in filing cannot be condoned. b) M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017 TIOL 185-SC-IT). On appeal, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismissed the petition by upholding the decision of High Court on the issue of condonation of delay. 2. Sh. Subodh Prakash vs. JCIT (2017-TIOL-2249- HC)P&H-IT) Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that when the explanation submitted by the assessee does not satisfy the test of 'sufficient cause' as required u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, she requested to dismiss the appeal on this ground. 6. We hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of NC Cables Ltd. vs. ITO; in the case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO; CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metals (P) Ltd.; CIT vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. and CIT vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited 216 CTR 195 (SC) and the ITAT decision dated 25.2.2015 in the case of ITO vs. Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 3545/Del/2010 (AY 2002-03) and CO No. 138/Del/2010 (AY 2002-03) in the case of Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO. We note that in this case, Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment are that information has been received from the Director of Income Tax, (Investigation), New Delhi that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 1,53,11,000/- from various parties as follows:- BENIFIOARY'S NAME BENHICIARY BANK NAM1-: BHNI'JCIARY BANK BRANCH VALUE OF ENTRY 1AKEN INSTRUMENT NO. BY WHICH ENTRY TAKEN PATE ON WHICH ENTRY TAKEN NAME OE ACCOUNT HOLDER OF ENTRY GIVING ACCOUNT BANK FROM WHICH ENTRY GIVEN BRANCH OF ENTRY GIVING BANK A/C NO. ENTRY GIVING ACCOUNJ MARKS OONSOKHM B (I) BUSINESS LIB HDD K Ci MARC 7(XXX)0 V 21-Jan-03 XDINANATH LUHARIWAI. SPT. MILL SBP DG 50103 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS L I D HDEC K G MA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IESS L ID DDSBI NEW DELHI -KXI680 164384 3-Oct-O 2 vSHAKUNTI .A DT;VI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDA LED BUSNIESS LTD DDSBI NEW-DELHI 40068X) 164384 3-0 ci -02 SHAKUN TLA DLVJ JAJLAXMI COOP BANK Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATED BUSNIESS L I D DDSBI NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-Oct-02 SHAKUN 11.A DEVI JA1LAXMI COOP BANK Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS l/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-Oct-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK I Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS l/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-Oct-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK I Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS l/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-Oct-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK I- Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS l/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-Oct-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK I Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS l/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-Oct-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK Fatehpuri 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS l/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s NC Cables Ltd. in ITA No. 335/2015 has held as under:- 11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT(a), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression 'approved' says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer, For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be disturbed." (B). Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held as under:- "7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am Satisfied". In the case of ARjun S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|