9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning the delay of 166 days. As per reason shown by the appellant/assessee coupled with the fact though the application of the appellant was supported by the affidavit, but the revenue did not file any counter-affidavit controverting the reason assigned by the assessee and, as such, the delay of 371 days occurred in filing the appeal remained uncontroverted, therefore, the delay of 371 days occurred in filing the appeal being bona fide and unintentional deserves to be and is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of 5, 000/- by the appellant to the High Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant is also directed to file proof thereof within 15 days from today. The substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A.O. was not satisfied with the appellant's explanation and subsequently issued letters under Section 133 (6) of the Income Tax Act to both the State Bank of India and the Oriental Bank of Commerce to make further inquiries regarding the said cheques, specifically to verify whether the cheques were account payee cheques. In response, the SBI, Tifra Branch and Oriental Bank of Commerce confirmed that the amount was credited through RTGS to the appellant's account. However, despite this confirmation, the A.O. remained unsatisfied with the explanations and proceeded to impose a penalty of Rs. 31, 00, 000/- vide order dated 26.03.2017 (Annexure A/1) against which the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26311/2024., in which the delay of 166 days' has been condoned by the Supreme Court by Order dated 31.1.2025 and, therefore, the impugned order is also liable to be set-aside and the delay be condoned. In this regard, learned Counsel has also relied upon decision of this Court passed in Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal v. The Income Tax Office-1(1), Raipur TAX Case No.166 of 2024; decided on 04.02.2025. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Department, however supports the impugned Order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Mr. Nikhilesh Begani, learned amicus curiae has also brought out the relevant facts, basis of delay herein and valuable legal position to our notice. 6. We have heard learned counsels for part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
