9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sheet of the appellant/ assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the liabilities of the above mentioned two parties; G.G.Telecrest Pvt. Ltd. and Uttam Strips Pvt. Ltd., aggregating Rs. 95,00,000/- require further investigations/verifications. Therefore, in the interest of justice appellant/assessee deserves reasonable one more opportunity to make good the defects/shortcomings - we deem it appropriate set aside the issue of taxability of liabilities of G.G.Telecrest Pvt. Ltd. and Uttam Strips Pvt. Ltd.and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for de-nova consideration.' In respect of creditors other than those mentioned above in para 10, the appellant/assessee did not file any details or confirmation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 16,28,500/-. 3. The relevant facts for deciding this appeal, in brief, are that the appellant/assessee, proprietor of R.J. Traders, deals in mobile phones and electronic gadgets. The assessee filed its return of income, on 30.09.2012, declaring income of Rs. 3,20,460/-. On scrutiny, the consequential assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act determining the income at Rs. 1,59,31,470/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer [In short, the AO ] called for the requisite details of creditors of Rs. 1,12,75,060/- along with the genuineness of transactions and creditors identity creditworthiness; however, the appellant/assessee complied partially by submitting some of the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /discount given on sale of mobile phones and therefore, the same did not qualify for TDS. However, the appellant/assessee failed to substantiate his claim in this regard with any bill/voucher/corroboratory evidence. Hence, the AO disallowed this expenditure of Rs. 16,52,720/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.2 Based on the AIR information, the AO show-caused the appellant/assessee to explain the cash deposits of Rs. 22,00,000/- made during the relevant year in the bank account of United Fashion being proprietor of the same. The appellant/assessee submitted that the profit derived from United Fashion had been accounted for in the P L account of R.J. Traders; hence, it is disclosed and explained. The AO, holding that the closing balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 84 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the appellant for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. We are of the considered view that there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing the present appeal and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal be decided on merit. We do not see any prejudice which will be caused to the Revenue in deciding this appeal on merit. In case of HL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter hearing the parties. Another principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court is that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It was also held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of male fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there may not be some error in the grouping of these liabilities under the head creditors instead of loans and advances as these liabilities are not appearing under the head loans and advances in the balance sheet of the appellant/ assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the liabilities of the above mentioned two parties; G.G.Telecrest Pvt. Ltd. and Uttam Strips Pvt. Ltd., aggregating Rs. 95,00,000/- require further investigations/verifications. Therefore, in the interest of justice and considering all the afore-stated observations, we are of the considered view that, the appellant/assessee deserves reasonable one more opportunity to make good the defects/shortcomings. In view hereof, without offering our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
