Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT :
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-2 dated 14/01/2020, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was presented before the Tribunal on 9th June, 2020. It ought to have been filed within sixty (60) days of receipt of the order but it is time barred by seventy two (72) days. Before the expiry of limitation to file an appeal before the Tribunal, a lockdown was imposed in the country on account of Covid situation and the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the period of limitation. Therefore, practically this appeal is not time barred. Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ranesh Sinha 2
The assessee has taken eleven (11) grounds of appeal which are not in consonance with Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules. Rather, they are descriptive and argumentative in nature. In brief, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order in an ex-parte assessment. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has filed his return of income on 29/07/2011 declaring total income at Rs.39,61,620/- and the assessment order was passed on 29/03/2014 whereby taxable income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.78,48,130/-. The Assessing Officer has made three additions, namely, (a) Rs.30,94,000/- on account sale of immovable property; (b) Rs.7,78,880/- on account of unexplained expenditure incurred through credit card & (c) Rs.13,631/- on account of difference between the salary income declared by the assessee vis-à-vis available in Form No. 26AS.
With the assistance of the ld. representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the Assessing Officer while making the addition of Rs.30,94,000/- on account of sale of property, he added the total sale consideration in the absence of details submitted by the assessee for earning capital gain. We are of the view that if the assessee failed to submit such details, then the Assessing Officer could have called for the sale deed from the local