MR.M.K.MOHAN,HASSAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, HASSAN

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The order passed by Ld. A.0 and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is arbitrary in as much as the same was made without providing the mandatory opportunity to be heard under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.46,17,550/- as determined by the authorities below as against the reported total taxable income of Rs.4,66,590/- by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.86,789/- as difference in total income under the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.2,20,000/-towards unproved creditors under the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.2,74,690/-as VAT difference under the facts and circumstances of the case.

16. Wherefore the Appellant prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal and set-aside the orders passed by the authorities below to the extent they are against the appellant and pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that this appeal was filed late before the Tribunal and the delay is of 131 days. He also submitted that the assessee has made an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. He submitted that the delay should be condoned. The ld. DR of revenue strongly opposed the condonation of delay.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in the affidavit filed by the assessee, it has been stated that he has shifted his residence from Holenarsipur to Hassan and his aged mother who was residing at his earlier address at the relevant point of time and she received the order of CIT(A) and because of her old age and lack of education, she has forgotten to handover the order to him and on a subsequent date when the assessee visited his mother, he came across the postal envelope containing the appellate order and thereafter, he immediately took steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering these facts, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

5. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that for the same reasons for which he could not file the appeal before the Tribunal in time, he could not make compliance before CIT(A) also because only one hearing notice was issued by CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing on 30.08.2016 and the same did not reach to the assessee because of the same reasons and therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee and if this is done the assessee will ensure proper compliance before CIT(A). The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT (A).