Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 96 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of appeal – Delay of 638 days – Held that:- Except for a bald submission, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the earlier counsel did not properly guide the assessee - The theory of mistake of counsel propounded by the assessee is absolutely without any foundation - The assertion so made in the application for condonation of delay is a mere self serving statement - The further argument that the appellant was ignorant of the legal provisions also does not stand in view of the fact that it is a private limited company regularly filing returns of income - there is no substance in the plea for condonation of delay which is to the extent of one year and 318 days - Cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by time. There should be some ground decided or some ground taken up before the CIT(A) which would have remained undisposed off - The natural corollary which follows is that the assessee must have raised a particular ground before the CIT(A) which should have been either been decided against it or had remained undecided - unless there is a specific ground raised before the CIT(A), there can be no question of taking recourse to the Rule 27. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the validity of search was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) on all the issues now sought to be taken up - The reason for the ‘no discussion’ of such issues in the order is that these were not at all raised before the CIT(A) - If such issues had actually been raised before the CIT(A), then the least to be expected of the assessee was the moving of a rectification application u/s 154 pointing out his failure in dealing with such issues - the assessee’s application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 is not maintainable because there is no adverse decision of the CIT(A) on the issues which are now sought to be raised through the application. Deletion of unconfirmed, unexplained and unverified share capital in the books of the assessee – Held that:- The assessee did not furnish complete details during the course of assessment proceedings in support of the genuineness of the share applicants - When the assessee furnished documentary evidence before the CIT(A) in support of the genuineness of the credits, the AO in remand proceedings ventured to conduct inquiries from the six companies who the assessee claimed to have given share application money to it - the assessee failed to prove the very first ingredient of sec. 68, being the identity of the creditors - The addresses of these corporate entities turned out to be fake or not available - the AO conducted due and proper inquiry which transpired that these six companies were non-existent and further the assessee took no steps to prove the existence of such companies – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of revenue.
|