SAMEER ASHOK JOSHI,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 21.10.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14.

There is delay of 445 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice given by Income Tax Practitioner (ITP), namely, Mr. Pradeep Pardeshi that the remedial of action against the assessment order, wherein the addition of profit from partnership firm is made, can be pursue under the proceedings of section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). An affidavit from the said ITP is also filed before us. It is only on the second opinion by another Chartered Accountant, namely, Shri Sanket M. Joshi that the present appeal has been filed with the delay of 445 days. The ld. AR submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional on the part of the appellant. He further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the proposition where the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice given by the Counsel, constitutes sufficient reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal :- (i) Faisal Hameed vs. ITAT, 83 DTR 10 (J&K). (ii) Madura Coats Ltd. vs. CCE, 119 CTR 63 (SC). (iii) L. Sohanraj & Ors. vs. DCIT, 260 ITR 155 (Kar.). (iv) O.A.O.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar vs. CIT, 19 ITR 402 (Mad.). (v) Venkatadri Traders Ltd. vs. CIT, 248 ITR 681 (Mad.) 3. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR opposed the condonation of delay.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the averments made in the affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit were not controverted by the ld. CIT-DR. Therefore, we satisfied that the delay in filing the present appeal was occurred on account of wrong advice given by the ITP which constitute reasonable cause for condonation of delay. In view of the above judicial precedents, relied upon by the ld. AR for the assessee, we condone the delay of 445 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

On the merits of the issue in appeal, the provisions of section 10(2A) of the Act provides that the income from share of profits for the partnership firm is not taxable in the hands of the partner only. However, since the assessee had not produced evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) in support of the contention that a sum of Rs.7.44 lakhs represents the income form share of profit from the partnership firm, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether the said sum in question represents the share of profit from the partnership firm, if so found, delete the addition of Rs.7.44 lakhs. Thus, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.