TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay and we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of the justice, the delay required to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay. Addition of un-disclosed income - HELD THAT:- We have heard both the parties. In the instant case, the assessee has admitted the said income in the regular returns filed for the AYs.2003-04 2004-05 and also filed the acknowledgement copy before us during the course of hearing. This fact was not controverted by the Ld.DR - delete the addition made by the AO. - I.T.A. No. 2193/HYD/2017 (Block Period: 1997-98 to 2002-03 & 01-04-2002 to 02-07-2002) - - - Dated:- 23-10-2019 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipulated time. The AR of the assessee misplaced the appeal papers and did not file the appeal. Later the assessee has changed the AR and filed the appeal with the delay. The Ld.AR further submitted that there was no malafide intention and willful default by the assessee, hence, requested to condone the delay. 4.1. Ld.AR further submitted that the AO made the additions of ₹ 2,50,000/- for the AY.2003-04 and ₹ 62,500/- for the AY.2004-05 for the Block Period from 1999-2000 to 30-06- 2002 relating to the cash receipts as un-disclosed income . Ld.AR argued that time limit for filing regular returns was not expired by the time search conducted in the case of searched person hence, the said cash receipts cannot be tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee argued that there is no malafide intention and genuine reason for filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore, argued that as per the guidelines given in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, requested to take liberal approach and condone the delay. 4.2. In addition to the above, the AR of the assessee also relied on the following case law: a. Jayvantsinh N Vaghela Vs. Income Tax Officer Tax Appeal No.853 of 2013 with Tax Appeal No.854 of 2013; b. N.Balakrishnan Vs. Mr.Krishnamurthy (1998) 7SSC123; c. Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. Thr. Power of Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C. and Ors. (2013) 1SSC353; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the FY.2002-03 for an amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- and ₹ 62,500/- during the FY.2003-04, which was assessed as un-disclosed income in the hands of assessee by the AO in block assessment u/s.158BD of the Act. The assessee also admitted the same income in the regular returns filed by the assessee for the AYs.2003-04 and 2004-05. By the time search conducted, the time limit was available to the assessee for filing the return. Therefore, the assessee had filed the regular returns for the AYs.2003-04 and 2004-05, admitting the cash receipts as income in his hands. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of N.Srinivasa Rao and others in IT(SS)A No.32/Hyd/2006 and others, dt.13-02-2009, allowed the appeals of assessees and held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
