TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee under the Act. 3. A search and seizure was conducted in the case of the appellant on 16-09-2010, and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant for the Assessment Year 2011-12, as the date of search fell within the said Assessment Year. 4. The assessee filed its return of Income on 01-03-2010, declaring the total income of Rs. 67,86,340/-. 5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee/assessee's authorized representative appeared from time to time and a detailed reply was also filed on 05-01-2013. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad, the then Assessing Officer, vide his order dt.30-03-2013, completed the assessment. The income returned was the inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the well considered order of the Assessing Officer. The Revisional Authority directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after "making detailed enquiries and investigation". He was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer ought to have made 'further enquiries', before accepting the statements made by the assessee at the time of assessment. The Revisional Authority did not consider the separate returns under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and the affidavits and other material filed by the family members of the assessee. 11. The Assessing Officer, vide his order dt.31-12-2015, completed the assessment once again, under Section 143(3) r/w 263 of the Act, in tune with the order of the Revisional Authority. 12. Questioning the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the appellant was advised that it was necessary to challenge the Revisional Authority order also, and thus the delay of 154 days in filing the appeal occurred. 18. Learned counsel for appellant also contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the explanation offered by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal was not bona fide. 19. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Special Counsel for Central Taxes appearing for respondents, however, supported the order passed by the Tribunal, and contended that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 20. We have noted the contentions of both sides. 21. The reasoning assigned by the assessee for not preferring the appeal within the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case and contend before the Tribunal that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue even if it is erroneous particularly where two views are possible. The Tribunal ought to have atleast imposed some costs on the appellant in the event it was of the opinion that the said period of delay was not properly explained in view of the possible prejudice caused to the appellant if the appeal were to be dismissed . 26. The Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice; and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of par....