9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me got increased and the loss was converted into profit - The aforesaid facts are apparent on perusal of the return of income. Therefore, the addition made in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. We are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned. In our view, restoring the issue back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication on merits would be an empty formality. Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT(A) is set aside and the addition is deleted. Grounds No.1 to 4 raised by the Appellant are allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred not deleting adjustment of Rs. 70,34,565 without considering the facts that the amount of Rs. 3,85,92,588 considered as "Income/receipt credited to profit and loss account considered under other heads of income" and the amount of Capital Gain of Rs. 3,85,92,588 (Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 3,47,12,086 considered under the exempt income in ITR and Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 38,80,502 considered under the head Capital Gain in the ITR) are same and there is no difference in both the amounts. 4. The adjustment made under intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was factually incorrect and are not covered under the ambit of provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act prior to the passing of the intimation order, dated 31/10/2019, the Appellant was under the bonafide belief that the issue would also be taken up for consideration and would be resolved in favour of the Appellant at the time of passing of the assessment order. However, the Assessment Order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 02/03/2021 without making any reference to the same. Therefore, the Appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the Intimation Order, dated 31/10/2019, after a delay of more than 2 years along with application seeking condonation of delay on account of aforesaid reasons. It was stated on behalf of the Appellant that the period of delay subsided with the period during which the Covid 19 Pandemi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken and that the aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner, more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late (as is the case in appeal before us). Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 7.1. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the relevant previous year. In the return of income the aforesaid account was reduced while computing the Profits & Gains of Business as the same was falling within the head Capital Gains. INR 3,47,12,066/- was claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act while INR 38,80,502/- was offered to tax as short term capital gains income in the return of income. While processing the return of income instead of reducing aggregate capital gains of INR 3,85,92,588/- from the business income, amount of sale consideration received by the Appellant in respect of short term capital gains amounting to INR 3,15,58,023/- was reduced. As a result, the Business Income got increased by INR 70,34,565/- [INR 3,85,92,588/- Less 3,15,58,023/-] and the loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
