NARIKKOLIL HAMEED,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

PDF

ITA 200/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 March 2025AY 2010-11Bench: the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to recompute the capital gain after allowing brokerage expenditure of Rs.1,67,500/- and the balance amount was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground tha3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The non-resident assessee filed an income tax return for AY 2010-11, which was assessed by the AO under Section 143(3) with additions for unexplained cash deposit and capital gain. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by directing recomputation of capital gain after allowing brokerage expenditure, confirming the remaining additions. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT with a 37-day delay.

Held

The ITAT condoned the 37-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's reasons. However, since the appellant made no submissions to challenge the CIT(A)'s order on its merits, the ITAT found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Whether the CIT(A)'s order, partly confirming additions for unexplained cash deposit and capital gain, warranted interference in the absence of specific submissions by the appellant.

Sections Cited

143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Hearing: 05.02.2025Pronounced: 11.03.2025

O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru [CIT(A)], dated 09.12.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

The appellant is a non-resident individual. The return of income for AY 2010-11 was filed on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 18,79,480/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax Narikkolil Hameed (International Taxation) (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 30.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 96,95,545/-. While doing so, the AO made addition on account of unexplained cash exposit in the bank account of Rs. 50,00,000/- and addition on account of capital gain of Rs. 27,56,092/-.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to recompute the capital gain after allowing brokerage expenditure of Rs. 1,67,500/- and the balance amount was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

At the outset we find that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred, since the appellant was located at a distant place from the Tax Consultant, the order of the CIT(A) could not be communicated because of the old age of the appellant, etc. Therefore, the delay is not wilful or deliberate. Having considered the averments mae in the petition, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 37 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.