9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the assessee also invited our attention that all the appeals are time barred by 24 days. It was requested that the delay may be condoned. The learned Counsel also explained the circumstances which caused delay. 2.1. On the other hand, the learned CIT(DR) opposed the condonation of delay by contending that delay of each day has to be explained by the assessee, meaning thereby it may not be condoned. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, condonation of delay is concerned, the assessee has explained the reasons which led to delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Considering the reasons of delay, explained before us, no doubt filing of an appeal is a right gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the assessee, the delay needs to condoned in such cases. The expression „sufficient cause‟ is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply law in a meaningful manner, which sub-serves the end of justice- that being the life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vedabhai vs Santaram 253 ITR 798 observed that inordinate delay calls of cautious approach. This means that there should be no mala fide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon‟ble Apex Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15/01/2016 and Mr. Nikunj Barot (Prop. Enigma) vs ITO (ITA No.4887/Mum/2015) order dated 06/01/2016, wherein, substantial delay was condoned, supports the case of the present assessee. Having made the aforesaid observation and various decisions discussed hereinabove, including from Hon‟ble Apex Court, the circumstances narrated by the assessee, wherein, he has stated the reasons which caused the delay, therefore, the delay is condoned. 3. During hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee Shri Sanjay R Parikh explained that the assessee filed the return u/s.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), on the amount as discussed for the respective appeal. It was explained that payments have been made by the assessee to cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153A of the Act, the assessee declared income of Rs. 5,34,300/-. During the course of assessment, the assessee filed revised computation of income on account of net profit from M/s. Nidhi Apparels. The assessee offered 5% of the sale proceeds deposited in the bank account wherein the amount of Rs. 26,20,282/- was found to be deposited. The assessee offered 5% of Rs. 26,50,000/- (rounded of) which comes to Rs. 1,32,500/- to tax u/s.44AF of the Act in the revised computation. The final assessment was completed at the income of Rs. 31,54,380/- u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer held that the cash was unexplained credit and thus, the addition was made u/s.68 of the Act. 5.2. For A.Y.2011-12, the assessee declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation, we are of the view that it will meet the ends of justice if the total addition is restricted to 25% of the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account. The same is worked out in the following manner:- AY Amount of Deposit in the Bank Account Extent of Addition Addition sustained by us (Rs.) 2009-10 347545/- 25% 86886/- 2010-11 2620082/- 25% 655020/- 2011-12 1503650/- 25% 375913/- 2012-13 358100/- 25% 89525/- Total 4829377/- 1207344/- It is worth mentioning here that the assessee has agreed to the above conclusion / addition. Thus, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Finally, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Finally, the appeals of the assessee are partly all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
