SUJATHA MADHURI ,SIDDIPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIDDIPET

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, deriving income from retail wine shop, filed her return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 27.9.2014 admitting total income of Rs.8,91,000/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee submitted that she is not able to maintain proper books of account as it is impossible to maintain books in such business. AO found that majority of the expenses are not supported by proper vouchers and most of the expenses are supported by self-made vouchers. He therefore, estimated the income of the assessee at 5% of the cost of goods put to sale. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us.

At the outset, it is found that the appeal is time barred by 199 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. In the application, the assessee has stated that though the CIT (A)’s order was duly served on the assessee, her part-time accountant missed to report it to her and the order of the CIT (A) was lying with other papers/documents and immediately on locating the papers, she filed the appeal before the Tribunal. She has filed an affidavit in support of the contention and prayed for condonation of delay.

The learned DR however, opposed the condonation stating that the assessee has not been vigilant in pursuing the appeal before the CIT (A). In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vama Apparels (India) (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, reported in (2019) 102 Taxmann.com 398 (Bombay).