9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 20.1.2011 admitting total income of Rs. 8,13,460/-. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued. After examining the case, the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act determining the total income of Rs. 4,96,41,505/- and initiated penalty proceedings for evading the tax by furnishing inaccurate particulars/suppressed the facts and concealed the correct income chargeable to tax. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee's legal heir, Shri Vinay V. Grandhi, came in appeal before this Tribunal regarding quantum addition in ITA No.629/Mds/2014. The Tribunal vide its order dated 7.7.2014, remitted the issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) to pass appropriate order by observing as follows: "5. After hearing both sides and carefully perusing the material on record, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. A.R. The Ld. A.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with appeal fees, handed over the same to Smt. H. Chitra, who is the administration-in-charge in the office of Shri T. Banusekar, CA, but she has misplaced the same. 7.1 Further, Smt. H. Chitra, in her Affidavit stated that she has received the duly signed appeal papers from the said assessee in the office of Shri T. Banusekar, CA and she has misplaced the appeal papers alongwith fees of Rs. 1000/- for filing appeal among other client papers and the misplacement of appeal papers came to the light only when the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act and passed consequential order on 5.2.2015. Accordingly, the assessee approached Shri Shreyans Bhandari, CA and submitted the appeal papers. Once again, Shri T. Banusekar, CA prepared the case papers and filed the appeal on 25.2.2015 and stated that the delay caused in filing the appeal is unintentional and it is bona fide and he prayed to admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. However, the ld. DR opposed the admission of the appeal. According to him, there is no reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. In our opinion, the delay in this case is 299 days, which is inordinate and also the reason stated by the assessee is not a reasonable cause for filing the appeal, belatedly. We have gone through the reason for delay as discussed in earlier para. As held by the Madras High Court in the case of Srinivas Charitable Trust cited supra, there was no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and the courts should exercise their discretion on the facts of the each case keeping in mind that in construing, the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, this judgment of the Madras High Court says that in order to advance substantial justice, which is of prime important, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. 9.2 In this case, in our opinion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Anusuya Devi. Originally, Anusuya Devi purchased the said property along with Late V. Mohan Rao, son of late V. Venugopal and Shri V. Ravindranath, son of late V. Venugopal from princess A.F.Fazilatunnisa Begum vide Doc. No.1303/1960 dt. 12.04.1960. Later, on the demise of V. Anusuya Devi, i.e. 21.5.2002, the property was devolved on the assessee and also on Mrs. R. Revathy wife of late G. Ramanathan, being the legal heirs of late V. Anusuya Devi. The contention of the DR is that the assessee has wrongly adopted the financial year 1980-81 for the purpose of determining the cost of inflation index instead of financial year 2002-03 relevant to the ay 2003-04, as the property was devolved only on 21.5.2002 on the death of his mother. The contention of the assessee's counsel is that cost of inflation index of the said property to be computed from 1.4.1981. In this case, the assessee's mother acquired the said property along with Late V. Mohan Rao, son of late V. Venugopal and Shri V. Ravindranath, son of late V. Venugopal on 12.4.1960 and after the death of the assessee's mother, the property was devolved on the assessee. 11. As per sec.49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act, whereas the capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o this, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case of M. Sivaparvathi & Others v. ITO (7 ITR (Trib) 468) held that, the assessee having inheritant property purchased by the previous owner in the year 1974, the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gains on the sale of such property had to be computed by applying the cost of inflation index by financial year 1981-82 and not by financial year 1989-90 i.e. the year of inheritance by the assessee. Thus, it is a settled proposition that when two views are possible, a view which is in favour of the assessee, has to be adopted. In this regard, we make reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192). 14. In view of this, we hold that in the present case, the assessee inherited the property on 21.5.2002. The said property was purchased by the assessee's mother on 12.4.1960. After the death of the assessee's mother, the property was inherited to the assessee along with other co-owners. Accordingly, the cost of indexation to be applied as on 1.4.1981, after fixing the value of the asset as on 1.4.1981 and it cannot be said that the assessee acquired property under disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
