Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1138 - ITAT KOLKATACondonation of delay filing appeal in ITAT - delay of 1326 days - sufficient Reason for delay - HELD THAT:- If we examine the explanation of the assessee then, it would reveal that basically the delay has occurred on account of lacunae by the erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee Shri S.K. Paul and the assessee did not have any malafide intention to cause the delay. Therefore, cumulative setting of all these factors would suggest that there is no deliberate delay at the end of the assessee because the assessee was not going to gain anything from delaying this appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that period of delay does not matter. It is the quality of the explanation. If some valid reason is there, then any period can be condoned. In this case delay was caused due to fault of the erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee. Taking into consideration all these factors, we condone the delay and admit this appeal. Revision u/s 263 - unexplained cash deposits - as per CIT no explanation as to the nature and source of the cash deposit and as to whether the same is explained for income tax purposes given - CIT observed that AO framed the assessment without making enquiries and verifications which should have been made - HELD THAT:- As submissions were filed by the assessee regarding the cash collected from investors, depositing them in ICICI Bank account and then payments made to project organisers and thereafter the cash withdrawal from ICICI Bank account and refunded to the investors. As submissions filed by the assessee which pertains to the deal of purchase of land from Ramel Group of Industries which could not materialize, it is established that the alleged cash deposit and withdrawal are not related to the business turnover of the assessee and the same is a separate transaction. Since the assessee was able to satisfy the AO that alleged cash withdrawal are not part of the regular business carried out by the assessee of trading in goods, he accepted the contention by way of proper application of mind and took plausible view provided under the statute and did not make any addition for cash deposits. It has been consistently held that where on a particular issue, AO has conducted a detailed enquiry, called for the relevant information to which necessary compliance has been made by the assessee and ld. Assessing Officer took a plausible view which may or may not be beneficial to the revenue but the assessment order is not erroneous, then under such circumstances, the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, cannot be invoked. As considering the fact that issue referred in the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act, in respect of source of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee held with ICICI Bank, assessee having successfully explained the said transaction before the ld. Assessing Officer after passing through detailed enquiry and again before ld. Pr. CIT, the submissions were made giving proper details in which the ld. Pr. CIT failed to find any specific error as no such defect has been recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, since detailed enquiry has been conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer on the issue raised in the show cause notice and a plausible view has been taken, we are of the considered view that ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|