Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre. There was a delay of six days in filing the appeals, which the assessee attributed to a mistaken belief regarding the filing procedure. The assessee claimed gift from mother and expenses from interest received.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the gift from mother, the Tribunal accepted the gift deed and directed the deletion of the addition. For the expenses claimed, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was made on an estimated basis without proper justification and directed its deletion.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether additions made on account of gift and disallowance of expenses are justified.
Sections Cited
250, 57, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B(SMC
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
Theseare appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 20.01.2023 for the AYs 2008-09 & 2013-14.
At the outset, I note from the appeal folder that there was a delay of six days in filing the appeals by the assessee and accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain the same. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in fact that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee filed the condonation petition, wherein it is submitted that the ld. CIT (A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 20th January, 2023, for which the due date for filing the appeal was 18th March, 2023. Accordingly, the assessee deposited the requisite fees of ₹10,000/- on 13.03.2023, and form-36 was uploaded online on 14.03.2024. However, the
The ld. DR on the other hand, left the issue to the wisdom of the Bench.
After perusing the condonation petition and hearing the rival contentions, I find that the reasons cited by the ld. AO are bonafide and genuine. I also find that there is no delay in filing the appeal which has been filed within the time and the only physical copy with the Tribunal was delayed. Considering these facts, I am inclined to condone the same by admitting the appeals for adjudication 2374/KOL/2024
The only issue raised by the assessee is against the addition of ₹1 lacs as made by the ld. AO on account of gift from mother , which was also confirmed by the ld. CIT (A).
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the proceeding before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) were ex-parte and accordingly, the issue was decided without the representation/ participation of the assessee. I note that the said addition has been made by the ld. AO on account of gift received from the mother, which was duly depicted in the balance sheet of the assessee. During the course of hearing the assessee filed a gift deed dated 15.01.2008, which is signed by the 2375/KOL/2024
The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of ₹3,70,080/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of disallowance made u/s 57 of the Act.
The ld. AO noted during the assessment proceedings that the assessee has claimed expenses from interest received from the bank and others under the “head expenses and interest” to the tune of ₹9,45,000/- and accordingly, the ld. AO disallowed 40% on estimated basis thereby making disallowance of ₹3,78,080/-.
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also affirmed the order of the ld. AO that the assessee has not furnished any evidences.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the claim of the assessee has been rejected on estimated basis at the rate of 40% by the AO without there being any basis for such estimation and disallowance. In our opinion, even if the assessment is framed u/s 144 of the Act even then the ld. AO has to made the assessment on reasonable and
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2025.