Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2011-12 Sri Mandali Vijay Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yadav, Ward-10(3), 8-86, Old Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: ADWPY 6861 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A. Srinivas Revenue by: Shri Sunil Kumar, DR Date of hearing: 03/11/2020 Date of pronouncement: 06/11/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-VII, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0184/ITO 10(3)/CIT (A)-VII/2014- 15, dated 26th May, 2015 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY: 2011-12.
The assessee has raised eight grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:
(i) The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay in filing the appeal. (ii) The Appellate Commissioner in the given circumstances ought to have condoned the delay ad heard the appeal on merits. (iii) The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant as infructuous. (iv) The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the order of the AO in estimating the income from liquor business @ 5% ignoring the book results as declared by the assessee. (v) Without prejudice to the ground at 4 above, the Appellate Commissioner not to have confirmed the order of the AO who have estimated the percentage of liquor business, ought to have given credit for the profit already declared on account of liquor business amounting to Rs. 1,45,004/-. (vi) The Appellate Commissioner ought not to confirm the order of AO who added an amount of Rs. 45,45,146/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 being the capital introduced in M/s. Brundavan Wines. (vii) The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the order of AO who having added the amounts U/s. 69 ought to have restricted the addition to the net capital introduced in M/s. Brundavan Wines during the previous year ending 31/3/2011 and not as per the peak credit worked out by the AO. (viii) Any other grounds which are appellant may urge either at or before the date of hearing.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal though it was explained that the delay had occurred due to the illness suffered by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that now the assessee has obtained the Medical Certificate from the Concerned Authority and therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh consideration. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection for remitting back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT (A).
After hearing both sides and taking note of the fact that the assessee is now in possession of the Medical Certificate regarding the illness suffered by him due to which there was a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for de-novo consideration.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Pronounced in the open Court on Sixth November, 2020.