9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 12/09/2023 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: 1. The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], passed under Section 250 of the Act dated 12/09/2023, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, may be quashed. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on total income of Rs. 2,35,27,070/- determined by the learned assessing officer and upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], as against the income returned and reported by the appellant of Rs. 12,68,970/ -, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The exparte order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals], is in grave violation of principles of natural justice, as the appellant could have been afforded another opportunity of hearing, consequently the impugned exparte order passed by the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Appeals] was not justified in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the appellant as per special taxes at 60% as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act for the amounts deposited by the appellant during the year, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice, though not conceding for the sake of argument, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer taxing the appellant under special rates under section 115BBE of the Act for the entire year without properly appreciating that The taxation Laws [Second Amendment] Act, 2016, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was introduced and the assent of the President of India was received only on 15/12/2016. Thus, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is applicable only to such of those transactions which have been transacted on or after 15/12/2016 and the said special rate of taxes cannot be made applicable to the transactions prior to 15/12/2016, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Without prejudice, to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and also an exparte appellate order under section 250 of the Act. 7. It is submitted that the Petitioner / Appellant received a recovery notice for making payment of outstanding demand and the Petitioner / Appellant took the said notice to his chartered accountant to take his assistance in replying to the said notice of recovery in the first week of December 2023. The said chartered accountant after seeing the notice for recovery of outstanding demand, logged into the Income-tax e-portal of the appellant and to their shock, the impugned appellate order under section 250 of the Act was passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], NFAC, Delhi, dated 12/09/2023. 8. The said chartered Accountant advised the Petitioner / Appellant to prefer a statutory appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and suggested the Petitioner / Appellant to consult and approach the present counsel i.e. Sri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate for suggesting and taking necessary steps for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal against the impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner / Appellant approached the present counsel and briefed him about the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank Et Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu Et Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao at Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC]. 2.3 In view of the above, the assessee could not file the appeal before this Tribunal well in time and by the time the appeal papers were prepared for filing, there arose delay of about 31 days in filing these present appeal before this Tribunal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeal was due to reason beyond the control of the assessee. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned. 2.4 The Ld.DR though objected however could not controvert the reasoning given by the Ld.AR for the delay that was caused in filing the present appeal. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 2.5 In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee is an individual. He is assessed to income tax in the office of the ITO, Ward 5(2)(3), Bangalore with PAN: ABOPN3061H. 3.2 The assessee filed his regular return of income on 29.06.2017 vide e-filing acknowledgment No: 833249540290617 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,68,970/-. The return was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 13.08.2018 and one more notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, dated 29.09.2018 was served on the Assessee. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 20.11.2019 and 26.12.2019, calling for specific details. The Assessee began gathering the details as required by the learned ITO. However, in the meanwhile the Ld.AO passed his order under section 144 on 28/12/2019. Thus denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld.AO assessed the income of the Assessee at Rs. 2,37,12,066/- as against the returned income of Rs. 12,68,970/-. 3.3 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
