TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal before final hearing." 3. Further, the assessee has also taken the following additional ground of appeal before us:- "1. The assessment order passed by Ld. AO is without jurisdiction and in contravention to the instruction No. 08 dated 14-08-2002 of CBDT." Application for condonation of delay 4. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time-barred by 246 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit, in which the assessee submitted that the Counsel who represented the case of the assessee before Ld. CIT(Appeals) advised the assessee not to file further appeal before ITAT. However, the assessee approach in another counsel, who advised assessee to file appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, since the assessee is not conversant with Income Tax Laws, he relied on the advice of the earlier counsel and did not file appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the present appeal is on account of incorrect advice of the earlier counsel appointed by the assessee, and therefore the same was on account of bona fide reasons. Accordingly, it was requested that the delay may kindly be condoned looking into t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal. The assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order, until it was confronted with auction notices in June, 2008, issued by competent authority, immediately upon which, assessee filed appeal with High Court. The High Court dismissed assessee's appeals holding that these were not fit cases in which inordinate delay of 1754 days in filing appeals deserved to be condoned. However, it was found that respondent revenue did not expressly refute stand taken by assessee that they had no knowledge about passing of order, dated 29-12-2003, until June, 2008. The Supreme Court held that unless that fact was to be refuted by the Revenue, question of disbelieving stand taken by assessee on affidavit, could not arise and for which reason, High Court should have shown sympathy to assessee by condoning delay in filing concerned appeal(s). 5.2 The Vishakhapatnam ITAT in the case of Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya v. ACIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 188 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) held that where assessee was under bona fide impression that its appeal had been filed by accountant, but came to know fact of not having filed appeal when there was pressure from department for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce a notice under section 143(2) is issued by a particular officer and if assessee wishes to object to such jurisdiction then objection has to be raised in terms of section 124(3)(a) within 30 days of issue of such notice and, in absence of such objection, assessee cannot challenge jurisdiction later on. In the case of All India Children Care & Educational Development Society 41 taxmann.com 20 (Allahabad), the High Court held that Tribunal is not a competent authority to adjudicate upon jurisdiction of Assessing Officer when it is not raised before Assessing Authority. In the case of CWT v. Ravi Malhotra 166 Taxman 253 (Allahabad), the High Court held that where up till stage of assessment no objection whatsoever was taken by assessee relating to jurisdiction of Wealth-tax Officer concerned, it would be presumed that assessee had acquiesced in jurisdiction of that Wealth-tax Officer and, therefore, he could not be permitted to raise such objection subsequently. In the case of Abhishek Jain 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that in terms of section 124(3)(b) jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by an assessee after expiry of one mont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing gift of Rs. 11,98,025/-. The AO, however held that the gift was not genuine for the reason that the affidavit demonstrated that the stamp paper used for making deed of purchase was on 08-02-2008 and gift deed was written on 05-01-2011 i.e. the date on which the money was transferred. This clearly shows that the transaction was an afterthought. Secondly, the AO observed that normally gift is given in round figures, whereas in the instant case amount gifted was not so. In view of the above, the AO held that the gift of Rs. 11,98,025/- as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. 11. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that from the copy of bank statement it is seen that the amount which was gifted to the assessee from his mother came from a joint account, in which the mother is the primary account holder and the assessee is the joint holder. The assessee however failed to explain the source of this money which was lying in the joint account, from which the gift was made by the mother of the assessee to the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the assessment order with the following observations: "As per plain reading of statement, the amount h....