9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rust, the same cannot be treated as the income of the Appellant, as such, the consequential additions made the A.O. and confirmed by the learned C.I.T.(A) needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 4. For that, the learned A.O. as well as the learned C.I.T.(A) have committed gross error of law while making addition relying on the statement of one Saroj Kumar Balawantray, without examining the explanation and evidences adduced by the Appellant. The impugned addition being made, ignoring the evidences has no leg to stand, as such, the same needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, other consequential addition of Rs. 51,083.00 and Rs. 60,000.00 being illegal and contrary to the facts on record are not sustainable in the eye of law, as such, same needs to be deleted in the interest of justice." Petition of assessee/appellant for condonation of delay. 2. The appeal is time barred by 5207 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition. In the petition, it is submitted that the appeal order was served on the assessee on 16.11.2004 and the appeal was required to be filed by 15.1.2005. In the meantime, the recovery proceeding was initiated against the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all take into consideration the period lapsed by the petitioner in this Court by filing this writ petition i.e. from 14.1.2005 till date. Interim order dated 15.3.2005 passed by this Court shall continue for a period of one month hence, it will open for the petitioner to rely upon the subsequent decision of ld Tribunal." 5. The assessee has obtained the certified copy of order of the Hon'ble High Court on 14.4.2019 and preferred appeal before the Tribunal on 22.4.2019 with petition for condoning the delay. In view of above direction of Hon'ble High Court, I condone the delay of 5207 days in filing the appeal and admit for adjudication. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal 6. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 62,820.00 and agricultural income at Rs. 1,00,000.00. The return was processed U/s. 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, based on the allegation of one Sri S.K. Balabantaray, one of the trustee of the Trust Satyasai Education Trust, reassessment proceeding U/s. 147 was initiated against the assessee. The reason for initiation of 147 proceeding was that, the Fixed Deposits of Rs. 28,00,000/- made in the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of same allegation of the ex-trustee, reassessed in the hand of this present Assessee for three Assessment years, adding Rs. 28,00,000.00 for Assessment year: 1999-2000, Rs. 33,00,000.00 for Assessment year 2000-2001 and Rs. 17,50,000.00 for Assessment year 2001-2002. Ld A.R. further submitted that for the assessment year 1999-2000, after getting the order of the ld CIT(A), assessee challenged it before the Hon'ble High Court of Odisha by exercising Writ jurisdiction, but challenged reassessment orders for rest of the two years in Appeal before CIT(A). While disposing of the Appeals for Assessment year: 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, the Ld CIT(A) after examining necessary facts and on the basis of Remand Report of the A.O., deleted additions and held that these amount of fixed deposits of Rs. 33,00,000.00 for Assessment year: 2000-2001 and Rs. 17,50,000.00 for Assessment year: 2001-2002 belongs to the trust and not of the assessee and hence, cannot be added in the hand of the assessee. 10. Ld A.R. submitted that when the very particular amount was already taxed in the hand of the Trust and for subsequent two Assessment years in the case of the Assessee on the same issue, the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO was not justified in treating the FDs made in the name of SET in different banks, amounting to Rs. 33 lacs, as belonging to the appellant and treating the same as income from undisclosed sources, for the reason that, from the enquiry report of the inspector, it was proved beyond doubt that, small amounts were collected from different persons numbering about 1200 on different dates, for which the receipts were also issued. These facts wee verified by the I.T. Inspector by visiting nearly 100 persons in the said locality, who confirmed to have donated small amounts to SET for constructing the Engineering College in their locality. Considering these facts, I have no any option but to direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 33 lacs made in the hands of the appellant." 13. From the order of ITAT dated 21.1.2011 in ITA No. 139 & 140/CTK/2007 in the appeals filed by the revenue against the order of ld CIT(A) granting relief to the present assessee, observed as under: "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We do not find any force in the argument of the learned DR that additional evidence has been accepted and acted upon by the learned CIT(A) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
