9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and authenticity. In this regard, opportunity may also be given to the Ld. Assessing Officer for cross verification. The assessee is also directed to kindly co-operate in the matter and provide assistance to the Revenue - ITA No. 448/Ahd/2020 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2022 - Waseem Ahmed , Member ( A ) And Siddhartha Nautiyal , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Hem Chajad , A. R. For the Respondents : R. R. Makwana , Sr. D. R. ORDER Per Siddhartha Nautiyal , Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. CIT(A)-9/10353/ITOWd.-3(1)(2)/17-18 vide order dated 25/09/2018 passed for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served upon the assessee, thereby causing the delay in filing appeal. The assessee came to know about the order of Ld. CIT(A) on going through the ITBA portal for status of appeal/demand. Thereafter, he filed appeal before ITAT. 3.1. The Tribunal, u/s. 253 of the Act, may admit an appeal, or cross-objection, after the expiry of prescribed period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. The Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749 (SC) held that the expression sufficient cause for condonation of delay in section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance the substantial justice when no negli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of order of Tribunal, dated 29-12-2003, until June, 2008, assessee's delay of 1754 days in filing appeal before Bombay High Court against Tribunal order was to be condoned. The brief facts of the case were that assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal. The assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order, until it was confronted with auction notices in June, 2008, issued by competent authority, immediately upon which, assessee filed appeal with High Court. The High Court dismissed assessee's appeals holding that these were not fit cases in which inordinate delay of 1754 days in filing appeals deserved to be condoned. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case are that the assessee filed original return of income showing total receipts of ₹ 2,85,12,858/-. Subsequently, the return was revised showing total receipts of ₹ 1,60,02,604/-. The Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that in the Tax Audit Report for the year, the assessee has shown gross turnover at 'Zero'. Further, the assessee did not furnish Tax Audit Report for the revised return. The Ld. AO noted that as per audited annual accounts submitted the assessee vide submission dated 12-09-2017, the assessee has debited financial expense of ₹ 85,33,664/- although there was no existing loan or loan taken during the year. However, on a perusal of revised list of expenses submitted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 76,621/- over and above the other income of ₹ 66,025/- shown in the ITR. The income at the rate of eight percent of the gross receipt of ₹ 2,77,76,621/-, works out to ₹ 22,22,129/-. The assessee has shown other income of ₹ 66,025/- in the P L part of the original ITR. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee is assessed at 22,88,154/- (22,22,129 + 66,025/-). 5. Before, the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not cause appearance and accordingly he confirmed the order passed by Ld. AO by observing as below: 3. The only ground of appeal is against estimating the income @ 8% of turnover over and above the returned income of ₹ 60,025/- by the A.O. In response to appeal filed, notice was issued on 7/6/2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
