Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Girish Kumar Khatri, Income Tax Officer, HYDERABAD Vs Ward-5(2), [PAN: AGWPK1622Q] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, AR For Revenue : Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR Date of Hearing : 01-01-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 08-01-2020 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee for the AY.2012-13, is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Hyderabad, dated 25-01-2018.
Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, an individual, engaged in the business of trading of plastic/paper disposable items, filed his return of income for the AY.2012-13 on 21-11-2013, declaring income of Rs.6,94,700/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS.
During the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the of the Income Tax Act [Act], the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee, along with three of his family members, purchased a property bearing Municipal No.3-4-512/12 (Old No.46/4RT) admeasuring 413.13 sq. yards situated at Barkatpura, Hyderabad for Rs.88.79 Lakhs, including stamp duty of Rs.7.79 Lakhs. The assessee’s share of investment in this property was Rs.23,54,310/-. When the assessee was asked to explain the source of above investment, vide letter dt.25-11-2014, he has furnished a statement showing gifts from his family members as sources for the investment. It is seen from the statement that the assessee received gifts from his family members. However, the AO was not convinced with the creditworthiness of the creditors to the extent of Rs.13.00 lakhs and accordingly, treated the sum of Rs.13 Lakhs as ‘unexplained gifts’ u/s.68 of the Act and brought it to tax.
3.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), with a delay of 72 days. Since the assessee did not file any application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 261 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that the delay has occurred due to communication gap between the assessee’s counsel and the assessee and also that due to certain constraints of his Chartered Accountant, who was dealing the assessee’s case, the ass handed over the file to an advocate. The Chartered Accountant also has filed an affidavit, explaining the reasons.
Ld.DR opposed the condonation of delay.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the constraints faced by the Chartered Accountant as explained by him in the affidavit filed by him, stating that the file was handed over to an advocate and subsequently was withdrawn and given to another counsel, which has resulted in delay of 261 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, I am inclined to condone the delay and remand the issue to the file of CIT(A), for re-consideration of the issue. The assessee is directed to file an application for condonation of delay, giving reasons for the delay and the CIT(A), if satisfied with the said reasons, may take a decision on the for condonation of delay and in case the delay being condoned, the CIT(A) may decide the appeal on merits.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th January, 2020