SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 151/CTK/2022Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 January 2023AY 2010-1112 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause due to her auditor's failure and subsequent actions. The Tribunal also deleted the addition made by the AO regarding capital introduction for the purchase of a JD loader, but confirmed the disallowance under Chapter VIA.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing issues with her auditor and participation in the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue objected to the condonation, highlighting the long delay and alleged deficiencies in the assessee's submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned, and whether the addition made by the AO for capital introduction is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Ms Archita Nayak, AR, Ms Archita Nayak, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Hearing: 19/01Pronounced: 19/01

per the sale deed on 10.4.2009. As of the beginning of the year, the assessee did have the funds. The introduction into the books of account of J.D.Loader could be after the transfer of the registration. The addition is in respect of introduction of capital of Rs.8.7 lakhs is in respect of purchase of the J.D.loader. The capital introduced has been used for the purchase of the J.D.Loader. The assessee did have Rs.10.8 lakhs as of the beginning of the year for the purchase and introduction of capital of Rs.8.7 lakhs. This being so, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO towards capital introduction of Rs.8.7 lakhs is unsustainable and consequently, we delete the same.

15.

Coming to the issue of the disallowance confirmed by the ld CIT(A) under Chapter VIA of the Act, ld AR has not been able to make any submission to substantiate its claim. Consequently, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) stands confirmed.

16.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/01/2023.

1.

Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 19/01/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)

P a g e 11 | 12

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →