Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and nor call for any further information to upheld the additions made by the AO. Therefore, in view of the above, we deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the present appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Suhas P. Bora, CA, Ms. Unnatii Thakkar, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 17/04/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has further erred in dismissing appellant's appeal on merits in a summary manner only on the basis of observations of the AO given in the assessment order and thereby passing ex-parte order. 3. The present appeal is delayed by 43 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the application, the assessee has stated the following reasons for seeking condonation of delay: - 2. Reason for Delay: a. Upon receipt of the impugned order dated 17 April 2024, the Appellant approached CA Manish Ladage to seek further assistance. CA Manish Ladage mentioned that an appeal against the impugned order can be filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Unfortunat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeals. Given the above and having perused the affidavit, we consider that there is sufficient cause for not filing the present appeals within the limitation period. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 5. The solitary issue arising for our consideration in the present case pertains to the addi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee has not paid an amount of Rs. 1,53,91,000/- to the seller which was to be paid within two years from the date of the conveyance deed. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted copies of the agreement, confirmation deed, conveyance deed and the details called for. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) vide order dated 27/12/2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 65,42,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Further, the balance amount of Rs. 1,53,91,000/- which was not paid by the assessee, was also considered his income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submissions were not considered by the learned CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal and upholding the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 9. From the aforenoted findings of the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, it is evident that neither the detailed submissions filed by the assessee on 15/02/2021 were considered by the learned CIT(A) nor the agreement dated 13/09/1984 and deed of confirmation dated 17/06/2000, placed reliance upon by the assessee, were considered by the learned CIT(A). It is trite that the power of the learned CIT(A) is co-terminus to the AO, however, in the present case the learned CIT(A) did not examine any of the contentions raised by the assessee and nor call for any further information to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates