ASHARAM BHUWAR PRASAD PRAJAPATI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 294/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 June 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's regular filing and reasonable gross profit in past years, the case was remanded to the AO for recomputation of tax liability.

What were the facts?

The assessee faced a delay of 105 days in filing the appeal due to hospitalization. The Assessing Officer had added the entire contractual receipts as unexplained income. The assessee remained unrepresented before the Commissioner, leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the addition of unexplained contractual receipts is justified, and if the case should be remanded for recomputation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order even dated 10.08.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13.

Shri Asharam Bhuwar Prasad Prajapati

2.

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 105 days in filing the instant appeal, for which the assessee has claimed that the Assessee had met with an accident on 18.06.2023 and remained hospitalized in R.K. Orthopadic hospital from 22.06.2023 to 03.07.2023, therefore the assessee was unable to file the respective appeal before the Tribunal within the limitation period, which resulted into delay of 105 days in filling of appeal, which was beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. D.R. did not refute the claim of the assessee. Considering the medical issue/accident caused to the assessee, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the instant appeal. Consequently, the delay of 105 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

3.

Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 05.11.2019 under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, added the entire amount i.e. 100% of the contractual receipts to the tune of Rs.37,13,698/- under section 69A of the Act, as unexplained and added the same in the income of the assessee.

4.

The assessee though before the Ld. Commissioner filed the first appeal, however, remained un-represented due to non-compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner, which resulted into affirmation of the addition made by the AO, therefore the assessee do

Shri Asharam Bhuwar Prasad Prajapati not deserve any leniency. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is ex- parte, and the Assessee has been regularly filing his return of income under section 44AD of the Act and showing reasonable gross profit and has shown gross profit of Rs.3,86,718/- on the gross purchase account of Rs.14,96,704/- which is 25% (approx.) in the AY under consideration, we are remanding this case to the file of the AO to recompute the tax liability by perusing the profit & loss account, sales tax return, sample copy of sales invoices, copy of 26AS statements, bank statements and the gross profit shown by the assessee in other 03 previous and subsequent Assessment years.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →