TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income-tax proceedings are only civil proceedings and the main object of the Income Tax Act is only to determine the correct tax liability in the hands of the assessee. By mere non-condonation of delay of 84 days, the very object of the Act would be defeated. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao [ 2020 (8) TMI 368 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT ] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 84 days and adjudicate the issue in appeal on merits in accordance with law. - ITA Nos. 03 to 07/NAG/2021 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2021 - Inturi Rama Rao , Member ( A ) And S. S. Viswanethra Ravi , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Milind Bhusari For the Respondents : Agnes P. Thomas ORDER These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Nagpur ['the CIT(A)'] commonly dated 28.12.2020 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, 2015-16 2017-18. 2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in all these appeals, we proceed to dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izure operations u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were conducted in the business premises of the appellant on 26.07.2016 and the search was concluded on 07.09.2016. The original return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 09.08.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 1,87,21,310/-. Subsequently, based on the information gathered during the course of search and seizure operations, a notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued to the appellant on 01.02.2017 and in response to the same, the appellant filed the returns of income on 26.03.2017 disclosing total income of ₹ 1,91,90,110/-. It was stated that during the course of search proceedings, the appellant company declared an additional income of ₹ 16,00,15,786/-. Out of which, an amount of ₹ 12,63,24,818/- was disclosed in the returns of income filed in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act, details of which are as under:- NAME OF ASSESSEE ASST. YEAR UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT M/s Om Shivam Buildcon P. Ltd. 2011-12 &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the facts of case and oblige. 7. The ld. CIT(A) after referring to the principles laid down in the following judicial precedents held that it is not a fit case for condoning the delay of 84 days and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal in limine:- (i) Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari and ors., AIR 1969 SC 575; (ii) Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat,: AIR 1981 SC 733; (iii) Binod Bihari Singh, vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1245; and, (iv) Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji Ors., AIR 1987 SCR (2) 387. 8. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 9. Before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that the explanation offered by the appellant was not held to be false by the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 84 days. 10. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not the ld. CIT(A) is justified in not condoning the delay of 84 days in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only after he consulted the Advocate, he realized the mistake and then challenged the order of the Revisional Authority. 22. The Tribunal took the view that the appellant ought to have explained why after receiving the order from the Revisional Authority he did not approach the Advocate, and held that he cannot say that only after he received the order of the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015, he approached the Advocate. 23. In our opinion, this view is not reasonable for the reason that the assessee is an individual and may not be well versed in law. It is not as if the appellant acted deliberately in not approaching the Advocate after he received the order of the Revisional authority. 24. The Revisional Authority had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to redo the exercise of assessment and the appellant could very well be under the impression that the consequential order of the Assessing Officer only required to be challenged and not the order of the Revisional Authority. 25. The assessee is entitled to question the order passed by the Revisional Authority also on the ground that powers of Revision under section 263 of the Act ought not to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays and adjudicate the issue in appeal on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 03/NAG/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Since the grounds of appeal and facts involved in rest of four appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 04 to 07/NAG/2021 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 2017-18 are identical to grounds raised in ITA No. 03/NAG/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12, therefore, our decision in ITA No. 03/NAG/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12 shall apply mutatis mutandis to rest of four appeals of the assessee i.e. ITA Nos. 04 to 07/NAG/2021 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 2017-18. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in rest of four appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Resultantly, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this the 24th day of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
