UMESH MAHIPATRAI ADHIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 42(1)(4), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

(A.Y. 2016-17) Umesh Mahipatrai Adhiya 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the subject issues on merit and passing an ex parte order and confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO to the returned income and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder. Therefore, the appeal may be restored back to Hon'ble CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs.1,87,000/- to the returned income by disallowing genuine claim of exempt agricultural income made u/s 2(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 by holding the same as non-agricultural income and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs.50,825/- to the returned income being the deemed rent income from vacant house property by applying deeming provisions and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in charging interest u/s 234B & 234C of the IT Act and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

6. Your Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

3. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 276 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation alongwith an affidavit explaining reasons for delay. It has been submitted that the appeal papers were prepared and signed by the assessee in the first week of May, 2023 and were sent to the C.A.. However, the C.A.’s father was diagnosed with cancer and hence appeal could not be filed by him in time. Subsequently, he left the firm and forgot to inform about the non-filing Page 2 of 4 (A.Y. 2016-17) Umesh Mahipatrai Adhiya of appeal. Thereafter, the appeal could be filed only in the month of February after the inadvertent omission by the C.A. came to notice. As the reasons given by the assessee appear to be genuine, we hereby condone the unintentional delay of 276 days.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs.5,77,950/- on 03.10.2016. The adjustment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.8,27,850/- after making additions on account of deemed rent, disallowance of claim of agricultural income and interest on refund. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against this order. Several notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A), however, no compliance was made. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed.