CHANDRAKANT ANANTA SASTE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-8(3), PUNE

Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 452 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason which led to delay. On due consideration of the averments made in the affidavit, I am satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. I note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. I therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector,

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and assessment u/s.147 of the Act carried out for A.Y. 2016-17 determining income at Rs.54,90,304/- after making addition of Rs.52,30,0000/- to the returned income at Rs.2,60,304/-. Aggrieved with the assessment, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but on the given dates of hearing assessee did not appear and ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-compliance.

Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has furnished detailed paper book running into 42 pages along with making submissions about the sum of Rs.42 lakhs received from M/s. Anshul Bhosale Realty against Joint Venture agreement which has been invested into Prerana Cooperative Bank as Fixed Deposit. Also the said Fixed Deposit got matured and the assessee received Rs.39.00 lakh from M/s. Anshul Bhosale Realty. Considering this factual aspect, I deem it appropriate that ld.CIT(A) should pass a speaking

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,