9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that actual days of delay is 154 days. This was also conceded by the Ld. Sr. DR. Therefore, it is apparent that the calculation of the days regarding limitation has wrongly been informed to the assessee by the registry. However, condoning the technical defect, I proceed to consider the merits in the condonation petition as well as affidavit filed by the assessee. Referring to the condonation petition, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is 67 years old having heart problem. The assessee is a farmer having no knowledge about the income tax laws. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said delay was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and it falls within the category of ordinate delay which may there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. That in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No............/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken in condoning the delay when limitation ground undermines the merits of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s done transaction of shares with a SEBI registered broker and therefore, in the remand report the A.O has mentioned that there arises a doubt whether the cash deposits are from agricultural income or from income received through transaction of shares. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the earlier counsel who was dealing with the matter has wrongly reported before the A.O at the time of remand proceedings by submitting that the assessee dealt with shares through registered broker of SEBI, but the fact remains as has been disclosed in the sworn in affidavit filed by the assessee before the bench that the assessee has never ever made any transaction through any broker of SEBI. Rather, the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
