9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the fundamental principle governing the condonation of delay under the income-tax proceedings i.e. the income-tax proceedings are only civil proceedings and the main object of the Income Tax Act is only to determine the correct tax liability in the hands of the assessee. By mere non-condonation of delay of 84 days, the very object of the Act would be defeated. The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao [ 2020 (8) TMI 368 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT ] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 84 days and adjudicate the issue in appeal on merits in accordance with law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zure operations u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were conducted in the business premises of the appellant on 26.07.2016 and the search was concluded on 07.09.2016. The original return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 09.08.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 1,87,21,310/-. Subsequently, based on the information gathered during the course of search and seizure operations, a notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the appellant on 01.02.2017 and in response to the same, the appellant filed the returns of income on 26.03.2017 disclosing total income of ₹ 1,91,90,110/-. It was stated that during the course of search proceedings, the appellant company declared an additional income of ₹ 16,00,15,786/-. Out of which, an amount of ₹ 12,63,24,818/- was disclosed in the returns of income filed in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act, details of which are as under:- NAME OF ASSESSEE ASST. YEAR UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT M/s Om Shivam Buildcon P. Ltd. 2011-12 ₹ 4,68,800/- 2012-13 ₹ 50,000/- 2013-14 ₹ 25,32,450/- 2014-15 ₹ 93,01,543/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Katiji & Ors., AIR 1987 SCR (2) 387. 8. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 9. Before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that the explanation offered by the appellant was not held to be false by the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 84 days. 10. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not the ld. CIT(A) is justified in not condoning the delay of 84 days in filing the appeals having regard to the explanation filed by the assessee before him. The explanation offered by the assessee for condoning the delay of 84 days in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is that the delay had occurred on account of the change of counsel. No doubt the appellant had not furnished the details as to, who was the original counsel etc. But, it is also clear that the ld. CIT(A) had not doubted the veracity of the explanation offered by the appellant in support of condoning the delay of 84 days in filing the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. It is not as if the appellant acted deliberately in not approaching the Advocate after he received the order of the Revisional authority. 24. The Revisional Authority had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to redo the exercise of assessment and the appellant could very well be under the impression that the consequential order of the Assessing Officer only required to be challenged and not the order of the Revisional Authority. 25. The assessee is entitled to question the order passed by the Revisional Authority also on the ground that powers of Revision under section 263 of the Act ought not to have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case and contend before the Tribunal that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue even if it is erroneous particularly where two views are possible. The Tribunal ought to have atleast imposed some costs on the appellant in the event it was of the opinion that the said period of delay was not properly explained in view of the possible prejudice caused to the appellant if the appeal were to be dismissed. 26. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Kris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
