KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Kusum George Jacob (Legal Heir of Late Shri George Jacob)

– AY 2012-13 Ld. AR for assessee very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He requested for condonation of delay. The Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

Kusum George Jacob (Legal Heir of Late Shri George Jacob)

– AY 2012-13 assessee made investment of Rs. 10,00,000/- in bonds of “Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.” during the previous year 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, issued notice dated 27.03.2019 u/s 148 to assessee for making assessment u/s 147. The AO also issued follow-up notices u/s 142(1).

However, the assessee did not make any compliance. Ultimately, the AO called information directly from “Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.” u/s 133(6) and issued show-cause notice to assessee for making best judgement assessment u/s 144 but this show-notice also remained un-complied by assessee. Finally, the AO completed assessment u/s 144 after making an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in bonds.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but could not make representation, hence the CIT(A) dismissed appeal of assessee and upheld AO’s order. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

Page 8 of 11 Kusum George Jacob (Legal Heir of Late Shri George Jacob) – AY 2012-13 Page 9 of 11 Kusum George Jacob (Legal Heir of Late Shri George Jacob)

– AY 2012-13 8. By referring to various documents placed in Paper-Book as per above Index, the Ld. AR attempted to demonstrate that the assessee received proceeds of retirement benefits from “Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Bhopal” and the same proceeds were utilized for making impugned investment in the bonds of “Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.” However, Ld. AR asserted in open court, which is also mentioned in the Certificate given just below “Index” in Paper-Book (re-produced above), that those documents were not filed before AO. Further, the CIT(A) has also not examined these documents. Therefore, those documents constitute additional evidences and require verification by AO. After discussions, learned Representatives of both sides came to a consensus for remanding this matter to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication.

Page 10 of 11 Kusum George Jacob (Legal Heir of Late Shri George Jacob) – AY 2012-13 10. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 27/02/2026