TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The Order of the Ld. CIT (A) is against the law, equity and natural justice. 2 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of Ld AO for rejection of Books of Accounts of appellant. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of Ld AO to determine total income of appellant @ 8 Percent of turnover plus Rs. 66,025/- being part of the business activities and thus determined total income of Rs. 22,88,154/-. 4 The Ld CIT(A) has passed the order ignoring the statement of facts filed by appellant. 4 The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. Total tax effect Rs. 5,95 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income-tax Act such as sections 274, 273, etc. Keeping in mind the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is an admitted position that the words 'sufficient cause' appearing in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If explanation does not smack of mala fide or does not put forth a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to such litigant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sympathy to assessee by condoning delay in filing concerned appeal(s). 3.3. The Vishakhapatnam ITAT in the case of Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya v. ACIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 188 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) held that where assessee was under bona fide impression that its appeal had been filed by accountant, but came to know fact of not having filed appeal when there was pressure from department for payment of demand, delay of 492 days in filing appeal was to be condoned, in the interests of justice. 3.4. In our considered view, looking into the reasons in the affidavit filed by the assessee wherein he has submitted that he had no knowledge of order being passed by Ld. CIT(A) and later came to know about the same only on going through the ITBA po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng evidence. The Ld. AO accordingly rejected assessee's books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act assessed income @ 8% of gross receipts of Rs. 2,77,76,621/- over and above other income of Rs. 66,025/- shown in the ITR. The Ld. AO held as under while passing the order: "16. As already discussed, despite opportunities the assessee has failed to comply the producing books of account called for which included final accounts, ledger account, purchase register, purchase bills, voucher of expense incurred by cash, electricity bill, salary register and cash book. Due to assessee's failure to comply with these details, the expense claimed in the ITR could not be verified. Therefore, there is enough reason to believe that the books were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant has shown turnover as 'zero' in form No. SCD uploaded on 10/9/2015. The A.O. has noted that appellant has claimed finance expenses of Rs. 85,33,664/-, but there was no existing loan or any loan taken during the year. A.O. has called for books of accounts, bills, vouchers etc. in support of the return of income, but it has failed to submit the details. Therefore, A.O. has rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income @ 8% of the gross receipt of Rs. 2,77,76,621/-. Appellant during the appellate proceedings has not made any submission, A.O. has estimated the income fairly @ 8% of turnover as appellant has failed to produce books of accounts etc. Therefore, addition made by the A.O. is confirmed. 4. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|