TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed post-pandemic delay; cash in hand issue not addressed; Tribunal upholds revision order</h1> <h3>M/s. VIP Housing and Properties Versus The ACIT, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai</h3> The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the pandemic, and the appeal was allowed to proceed. However, as no addition was made regarding the ... Revision u/s 263 - difference in cash in hand - AR filed copy of assessment order giving effect to the revision order and stated that the above subject matter was not added by the AO in the order giving effect to the order of revision passed by PCIT u/s.263 - HELD THAT:- As there is no addition made by AO in the order giving effect to the revision order passed by PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, the appeal filed against revision order of PCIT becomes academic and infructuous. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to pandemic.2. Assessment order regarding difference in cash in hand.3. Appeal becoming academic and infructuous.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the revision order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai, which was time-barred by 237 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition citing the delay was due to the Covid-19 pandemic period. The delay was condoned based on directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding condoning delays during the specified pandemic period. The delay was admitted, and the appeal was allowed to proceed.2. The main issue raised in the appeal was regarding the difference in cash in hand amounting to Rs.2,88,30,605. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine and make a fresh assessment order after verifying the difference between the closing and opening balance of cash in hand. The Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income Tax Act, but no addition was made concerning the cash in hand issue. As a result, the Tribunal found that since no addition was made by the Assessing Officer in the order giving effect to the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner, the appeal challenging the revision order became academic and was dismissed.3. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had already passed an order under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act without making any addition related to the cash in hand issue. Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner, and consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as academic and infructuous. The decision was pronounced in court on 11th May 2022 in Chennai.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
