TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount not chargeable to tax. b. The notices issued was never served to the Appellant. c. The Hon'ble CIT(A) have failed to consider the written submissions and additional evidences such as Purchase deed, sale deed, bank statement, affidavit, computation of income etc. filed on record. d. The capital gain was computed without considering the cost of plot, its indexation value and the investment deduction made u/s 54F of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) have violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant on specifically being asked for, therefore, the order should be deleted. 4. That the appellant craves right to amend, add, delete or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." Grounds of ITA 54/JP/2021 for the A.Y. 2009-10 "1. That the subject order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be quashed as the order is passed in haste manner, without taking into consideration the written submission, facts, documents and evidences as furnished by appellant available on record. 2. That on the facts and in law, the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there is a substantial delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. He opposed the prayer for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 48 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on her part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. In the instant case, it has been sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d discussions, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a small trader and trading of stone chokhat. The assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration and had sold immovable property on 05/01/2008 worth Rs. 8.75 lacs and not even disclosed his PAN for the above said transaction. Therefore, the case was of the assessee was reopened for scrutiny U/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and determining total income of Rs. 9,95,000/-. It is important to mention here that the assessment order U/s 147/144 of the Act was passed ex parte as in compliance of notice, no body appeared on behalf of the assessee before the A.O. 10. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee had only challenging the jurisdictional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012 and copy of application filed before the ITO for demand of photocopy of order/notices dated 15/05/2017. All the aforementioned documents suggest that since the assessee could not appear before the A.O. as the notice could not be served upon the assessee as the assessee had already charged the old address, therefore, in absence of the assessee, the matter was decided by the A.O. However, in order to put forth all his defence, the assessee had filed an application before the erstwhile CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for leading additional evidence and in this respect had placed on record bunch of documents. However, the ld. CIT(A) had not touched or considered the facts of documents placed on record and relied upon by the assessee but had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee merely on the ground that the assessee had raised merely jurisdictional issue and no paper book or submissions have been filed by the assessee in respect of his claim on merits. After perusal of the record, we found that the assessee had already filed the application for leading additional evidences submitted by other evidences as mentioned by the assessee in above para before the er....