2015 (6) TMI 308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elayed by 57 days but before issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay, we have deemed it appropriate to examine merits of the challenge to the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.8.2012. 2. The said order relates to assessment year 2009-10 in the case of Rakesh Garg. The said respondent was subjected to search and seizure operation on 31.7.2008 an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tax (Appeals) held that the deposit of tax was not made at the time when the first appeal was filed on 24.1.2011 but was made on a subsequent date. As already noticed above, the respondent had already paid the tax liability of Rs. 412,62,460/- by 14.3.2012, when the appeal was dismissed for non-payment. 5. Tribunal in the impugned order has found and held that there was a financial constraint fac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d condoned the delay. In the facts of the present case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order of the Tribunal allows and permits the respondent to question and challenge the additions made by the assessing officer on merits. As noticed above, the assessing officer has made substantial additions and has assessed the total income at Rs. 2088,99,730/-, as a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X