Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARAShri Kothakota
O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for the Asst. Year 2012-13 arise from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tirupati’s order dt.31.01.2020 passed in case No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2019-20/1024523410(1) involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
2 ITA 375/Hyd/2020 2. I notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers from 87 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 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.
The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : “ 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.35,68,205/- representing the opening capital as on 1.4.2011 when the said amount could not have been considered for addition for the year under consideration.
3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,48,195/- representing the cost of the site acquired on 1.9.2008.
3 ITA 375/Hyd/2020 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the salary receivable form Krupa Educational Society as on 1.4.2011 of Rs.5,00,000/- as the income for the Asst. Year 2012-13.”
Both parties reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition during the course of hearing. Learned authorized representative has vehemently contended that the assessee had not made any investment during the relevant previous year but prepared the final account as per the corresponding closing balance sheet as on 31.3.2011, which indicated accumulation of saving from the year 1998 onwards, she derived salary of Rs.9.8 lakhs forming part of balance sheet and the Assessing Officer has himself accepted interest on advances but doubted the corresponding figure of Rs.23,318,750; respectively.
Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee's foregoing substantive ground(s) back to the Assessing Officer for the purpose of reconciliation of her above explained source with the alleged investment made herein forming part of the addition made in both the lower proceedings. It is made clear that the assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer along with all the relevant details to be followed by three effective opportunities of 4 ITA 375/Hyd/2020 hearing. She would be further having liberty to raise all factual and legal arguments to this effect. Ordered accordingly. No other argument has been pressed during the course of hearing. 5. This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.