2020 (4) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. In brief, the grievance of the assessee involved in ground ns. 1 & 2 is that learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 157 days in filing the appeal before the learned First Appellate Authority and thereby confirming an addition of Rs. 6,98,050/- made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, according to the Assessing Officer, he received an information on the basis of data available in Form No.26AS in ITD system that during the year the assessee had received a receipt of Rs. 17,45,119/- on which tax was deducted and deposited in the Government account by the deductor amounting to Rs. 1,90,785/-; but no return of income was filed by the assessee. Armed with this information, the Assessing Of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r it should have filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) or it should have pointed out the exact error committed by the Assessing Officer in appreciating the fact. Since, according to the assessee, it had not carried out any business more particularly with Reliance Communications Ltd and somebody has wrongly misused the data, in that situation it was necessary for the assessee to get a finding of fact on this issue from the Assessing Officer. A perusal of the assessment order would indicate that the Assessing Officer has treated the information in the data as gospel truth inspite of objections of the assessee. He should have verified it from the Reliance Communications Ltd and ought to have found out as to whether any payment through bank....