Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA
O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for the Asst. Year 2014-15 arise from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tirupati’s order dt.31.10.2020 passed in the case No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2019- 20/1024510239(1) involving proceedings under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
I notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers from 87 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due
19 unable to get the documents from the department which caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. I accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay of eighty seven days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee's sole substantive ground challenging the correctness of both the lower authorities action making unexplained investment addition of Rs.28,30,029; his only argument during the course of hearing is that he had duly explained source thereof as attributable to sundry debtors, land purchase advances salary receivable from M/s. Krupa Educational Development and Cultural Society involving Rs.15.85 lakhs; Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.14.60 lakhs; respectively coming to Rs.33,45,000. His yet another argument that he had also sold properties for Rs.21.34 lakhs as well. Mr. Rama Rao further sought to buttress the fact that the foregoing three 31.3.2013 and opening balance as on 1.4.2013 as well.
The Revenue has strongly supported the impugned addition made by both the lower authorities.
Faced with this situation, I am of the opinion that all the assessee's foregoing arguments require the Assessing Officer’s factual verification for the purpose of reconciliation of the amount addition herein in the impugned assessment year resulting in addition of Rs.28,30,029. I, therefore, remit the assessee's instant sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer with a specific direction that the assessee shall file all the relevant details at his own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing. No other argument has been pressed during the course of hearing.
This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Nov., 2021.