9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer of adding Rs. 11,68,000/- to the income of the appellant being 20% of alleged contract receipts of Rs. 58,40,000/-when the actual contract receipts are Rs. 29,20.000/-. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the National Faceless Appeal Centre - CIT(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in estimating income at exorbitant rate of 20% of contract receipts. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre - CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing officer of adding Rs. 8,36,965/- to the income of the appellant being deposits into the bank by treating the same as unexplained cash credit merely on surmises and conjectures. 4. In the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessment would be completed u/s 144 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not respond to even the final notice the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. and in response a copy of the account statement for the period of 01.04.2011 to 21.03.2012 was received. On going through the bank statement the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs.8,36,965/- and also there was a credit to the tune of Rs. 1,20,30,973/- in the bank account. The Assessing Officer issued a fresh notice u/s 142(1) dated 29.11.2019 calling on the assessee to explain under that: i. why income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee since the email ID was not operational. Subsequently, when the assessee checked the appeal proceedings in the e-filing portal in July 2023 the assessee came to know that the appellate order was passed on 13.03.2023. The assessee, therefore, could not file the appeal within the statutory limitation period of 60 days and accordingly prayed for condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. 7. Having heard the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
