TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned AR for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 47 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the assessee could not file appeal within the time allowed under the Act, due to the fact that the assessee was suffering from viral hepatitis and was undergoing medical treatment and he had been advised complete bed rest which caused delay of 47 days. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor willful but for the unavoidable reasons, therefore, he prayed that delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Udayashankar that no such transaction has taken place. 5. For that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in assuming that the statements made by Mr.Udayashankar may lead to a situation that the assessment be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of money lending, construction of apartments and chit fund business. A search & seizure operation u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted in the case of the assessee on 28.01.2015 and consequent to search, assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.12.2016 and determined total income at Rs. 4,03,75,278/-. The case has been subsequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions on 28.07.2018 and 12.03.2019 and claimed that Mr. P.Udhayashankar denying transactions cannot mean that transaction is not genuine. The assessee further claimed that there is no evidence to suggest that statement of Mr. P.Udhayashankar is correct and further requested for copies of facts submitted to Income-tax Settlement Commission in the case of Mr. P.Udhayashankar. 7. The learned CIT after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and has also taken note of various facts, opined that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153B order is erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, because the Assessing Officer has failed to consider the above issue while completing ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions with Mr. P.Udhayashankar. Therefore, there is no error in the finding given by the learned CIT to term the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous insofar as, it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The learned CIT revised the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153B on the ground that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as, it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue on the issue of loan liability shown by the assessee in the name of Mr. P.Udhayashankar for the year ending 31.03.2015. We find that during the course o....