Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 32 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay of 154 days in filing this appeal by the assessee - CIT (Central), Hyderabad invoked the provisions of section 263 and passed an order on 10/03/2015 setting aside the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and directed the AO to re-do the assessment - assessee stated that he was under bonafide impression that appeal, if any, would lie when the AO passed an order in consequence to the direction of Ld. Pr. CIT - HELD THAT:- Having appeared before the Pr. CIT and filed the details before him and received the order from Pr.CIT what we do not understand is after receiving the order from Pr. CIT, why he was not approached the Advocate, was not explained before us. He has only approached the Advocate, when he received the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) rws 263 of the Act, on 31/12/2015. In our considered the view, the explanation offered by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal is not bonafide and therefore, it is not a fit case to condone the delay as the assessee has failed to establish that the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted. Unexplained investment u/s 69 - gold and silver articles found in search operation - AO gave credit for gold worth ₹ 26,40,468/- (weight of gold 1333.57) treating the same as inherited from assessee’s parents and the remaining gold jewellery as unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- It is a fact that assessee’s son and his daughter-in-law both are working in USA and there is every possibility that out of their earnings, they must have brought some gold jewellery. Therefore, we are of the view that some more credit should be given to the assessee and accordingly, we direct the AO to give credit of gold worth ₹ 24,00,000/- to the assessee and recalculate the addition (₹ 1,04,66,134 – ₹ 24,00,000) accordingly. Thus, ground No. 2 is partly allowed.
|