2018 (9) TMI 1022

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T(A) ought to have considered the facts and circumstances under which the delay occurred in filing of the appeal and ought to have condoned the delay by taking a lenient view. 3. The Hon'ble C1T(A) ought to have observed that nonadmission of appeal by condoning the delay caused heavy financial liability though there was no strong ground for raising such substantial tax demand. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that action of the AO in estimating the difference of undisclosed profit of Rs. 1,08,88,001 is unsustainable and therefore, the same ought to have been deleted. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the AO erred in disallowing part of the payments made to landlords without ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 46,10,000 is yet to be paid. Relevant details were submitted. Taking the same into consideration, AO arrived at the total income of Rs. 4,61,95,910 and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) with a delay of 146 days. The CIT (A) however, held that the delay is not properly explained and refused to condone the delay. Further, he also observed that the addition is on account of agreement by the Managing Partner of the assessee and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had admitted to the income during the course of survey, but later on, after verifying its books of account found that the profit declared during the course of....