MAHINDER SINGH,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1118/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18
Sh. Mahinder Singh
A-38, Ranjeet Nagar,
Ward-1(2),
Alwar.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:CKTPS2955M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby :None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 07/01/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
By way of the present appeal the assessee challenges the findings of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai recorded in order dated 27.06.2024
which relates to the assessment year 2017-18. That order of ld. CIT(A) passed because the assessee challenged an intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act [ for short Act], thereby making the addition while processing the return of income on 26.09.2018. That addition was done by Centralized Processing Center [CPC].
2
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
“1. That the delay of 1876 days in filing appeal before CIT(A) u/s 246A be condoned.
2. That the addition of Rs. 10,18,125.00 as income from other sources is without any basis and deserves to be set aside.
3. That the assessee craves to add, amend, alter, and/or delete any ground of appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.”
After filing an appeal by the assessee, the appeal was listed for hearing on three different dates. Except on one occasion seeking adjournment, on two occasions non appeared. Therefore, bench considered to decide the appeal of the assessee based on the facts available on record.
1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 03 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “On 27.06.2024, the order of commissioner (Appeals) was passed in my case for assessment year 2017-18. Being aggrieved by the said order, I had preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal. Due to my health issue, I was advised complete bedrest, and this undertook to do the needful soon after my health improved. My affidavit detailing the aforesaid facts is submitted along with. These may kindly be placed before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for condonation of the short delay of 3 days in submission of the appeal.”
3
4.2. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR fairly did not object to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
4.3
Heard the ld. DR and perused the file. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by the assessee for condonation of delay of 03 days are sufficient to condone the delay as the assessee was constrained and has sufficient reason to bring the present appeal with delay of 3 days on account his health. Having considered the affidavit and the prayer for condonation we are of the considered view that the assessee has sufficient cause and thereby we condone the delay of 3 daysin view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst.
Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC).
5. Now coming to the merits of the dispute. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee filed ITR declaring income of Rs.
3,25,200/- under the activity as Goods Transport Agency. The assessee also disclosed interest income of Rs. 12,870/-. As there an amount of Rs.
13,56,195/- was reflected in form no. 26AS as gross receipt. The assessee used to receive booking for transportation of goods by road and arrange goods carriage. The assessee used to receive booking amount from the 4
Sh. Mahinder Singh vs. ITO consignor and remit the same to the transporter after keeping the commission as his income. The assessee placed on record the profit & loss account before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee claims that as the CPC made the addition without giving an opportunity to him same was placed before ld. CIT(A).
6. When the matter was carried before ld. CIT(A) the appeal was filed after a delay of 1876 days but same was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A).
Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2025. ¼ujsUnz dqekj½
¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½
(NARINDER KUMAR)
(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16/01/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Sh. Mahinder Singh, Alwar.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1118/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत