TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. The doctrine should be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner - there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay of 248 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and that it is a fit case for condonation of the aforesaid delay and do so. Failure to pay self assessment tax on the originally declared income - assessee had neither furnished details nor supporting documents to reconcile the difference of income in the revised return vis-ŕ-vis the income declared in the original return of income - HELD THAT:- There has not been proper examination / verification of the matter as though the AO states that no details / corroborating evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2014 declaring income of ₹ 27,94,350/-. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return of income on 29.09.2015 wherein the income declared was ₹ 15,73,400/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) vide order dated 26.07.2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 27,94,345/-; i.e., at the income declared as per the original return of income. The assessee s appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2018. ORDER ON PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 3.1.1 The assessee s appeal before the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2014- 15 on 28. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... good conscience and justice. 3.1.2 The learned AR for the assessee was heard in support of the submissions put forth by the assessee in the Affidavit (supra) and reiterated the same. In support of the assessee s petition for condonation of the delay of 248 days in filing the appeal, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) (SC); (ii) Radhakrishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank and Others (2009) 9 SCC 733; (iii) Raghavendra Constructions in ITA No.425/Bang/2012 dated 14.12.2012; and (iv) Shakuntala Hegde (L/R of R. K. Hegde) Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2785/Bang/2004. 3.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue opposed the assessee s plea for cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n so far is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant in so far is bad and erroneous to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in assessing the total income at ₹ 27,94,345/- without considering the expenditure of ₹ 12,48,246/-claimed in the revised return filed. 3. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant has not produced any proof for expenses claimed in the revised return of income and such finding is perverse and contrary to the materials available on record. 4.2.1 The learned AR of the assessee was heard in support of the grounds raised. In written submissions filed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of audited financial statement. It is a fact that the revised return is available on record as both the learned assessing officer and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have referred to this fact in the respective orders. During the hearing, learned DR confirmed that audited financial statements are available in assessment records Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Bench be pleased to remand the case back to the files of the assessing officer so that a proper assessment can be made taking into account all the evidences. 4.3 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 4.4.1 I have considered the rival contentions / submissions and carefully perused the material on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filed showing reduced income of ₹ 15,73,400/- was only with the purpose of covering up the assessee s failure to pay self assessment tax on the originally declared income. On the other hand, the AR in submissions before the Bench (supra), states that the original return was filed based on unaudited provisional financial statement, whereas the revised return was filed on the basis of audited financial statements and that the same is available on the record. This fact was not controverted by the learned DR for Revenue. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders of the authorities below, it appears that there has not been proper examination / verification of the matter as though the AO states that no det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
