KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 72 days in filing both the present appeals before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed separate condonation petitions supported by affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay. In this regard, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is a salaried person and was not well-acquainted with the income-tax assessment and appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that the assessee was not in touch with any tax consultant who appears regularly before the Tribunal, and therefore, some time was consumed in identifying and engaging a suitable consultant for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. In the said process, the delay of 72 days occurred. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was caused due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, it was prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal be admitted in the interest of justice. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay and left the matter to the discretion of the Tribunal. 4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. Respectfully following the said principle, we condone the delay of 72 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld.AO has erred in not following the clauses (xi), (xvi) & (xviii) of Sub section 2 of Section 144B i.e. in not serving the Draft assessment order along with Show Cause notice before finalizing the assessment, which would amount to breach of not only Principles of Natural Justice but also of the action in complete disregard to the Statutory Provision.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld.AO erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant in submitting the sources of cash deposits made during the AY 2021-22. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that deposits made during the year are the earlier withdrawals redeposited during the year.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact the Cash deposits found in A/C. 20086681592 of SBI are from out of the explained sources and as such the addition deserves to be deleted.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld.AO erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant in submitting the sources of Cash deposits found in 50100035013519 in the HDFC Bank Ltd are from out of the explained sources and as such the addition deserves to be deleted.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld. AO has erred by making addition of 13,20,000 u/s 69 as Unexplained Investment.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that the Assessee has purchased a house property for 66,00,000 out of which 52,80,000 is paid from Housing loan availed from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and the remaining 13,20,000 is ITA Nos 1016 and 1017 of 2025 Krishnakumar Manda Page 4 of 16

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that the Assessee has sufficient funds as on the date of purchase of the said house property.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that the assessee has offered income of Rs. 19,80,431/- Cumulatively for last 4 years, which is sufficient for house property remaining payment of Rs.13,20,000/- and as such the addition deserves to be deleted.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that assessee has complied to all the notices issued by responding on time-to-time basis.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis of non-compliance to notices instead of considering the facts of the case that the assessee has complied to the notices.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld. AO has not considered the opening balance of cash, previous cash withdrawals and considered whole cash deposits as income.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O amounting to Rs.2,65,000/- by disallowing the claim of deduction under chapter VI A.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- by disallowing the claim of loss from house property u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as made by A.O of Rs.1,56,500/- as capital gain on sale of immovable property.

The Ld. CIT ought to appreciate the fact that Ld. Appellant may add or alter or modify or substitute or delete add or rescind all or any grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2021–22 on 31.03.2022 declaring a total income of Rs.5,34,420/-.