TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue, seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal, while the delay in re-filing is 7 days. 2. Having regard to the period involved in filing and re-filing the appeal, we are inclined to condone the same. 2.1 It is ordered accordingly. 3. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 701/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 5. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 17.02.2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 6. The sole issue which arises in the instant case, according to Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent/assessee carried the matter in appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) carried out an inquiry in the matter by exercising his powers under Section 250(4) of the Act and evidence was sought with regard to remittances made to the NRE Account maintained with the Canara Bank. 11. We may note that the respondent/assessee had taken the stand before the CIT(A) that he had no knowledge about the notices said to have been issued to him under Section 142 of the Act as they were delivered to his old address. 11.1 It was stated that the respondent's/assessee's stand was that he had no information as to who had collected the notices at his old address, albeit, on his behalf. 12. According to the respondent/assessee, he had acquired knowledge of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ores, which was made in several tranches, was secured from NRE Saving Bank Account No. 0207103041821, maintained with the Mumbai branch of Canara Bank. 16. The account statement was produced and other relevant documents were also submitted, which were appraised by the CIT(A). Thus, having regard to the material produced before him, the CIT(A) deleted the entire addition, which included Rs. 9.50 crores, having regard to the fact that the source of remittances was the income earned by the respondent/assessee in USA. 16.1 The finding returned by the CIT(A) with regard to the source of funds is captured in paragraph 5.9 of the order. For convenience, the said portion of the order is set forth hereafter: "5.9 Regarding the source ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has suo moto considered an amount of Rs. 2,86,47,782/- as duplicate entries and made a net addition of Rs. 16,86,47,782/- out of total alleged amount of Rs. 19,72,95,564/- reported by Canara Bank in ITS." 17. Being aggrieved, the appellant/revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/revenue on two grounds. 17.1 Firstly, that the CIT(A) had exercised his powers under Section 250(4) of the Act which was co-equal to that of the AO. It also took note of the fact that notice was issued to the concerned branch of Canara Bank under Section 133(6) of the Act and it was only after information was received from Canara Bank and material evidence furnished by the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amined necessary evidences for deciding the issue. Such exercise of power by learned first appellate authority assumes importance in the present case considering the fact that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to represent his case before the Assessing Officer. On a careful reading of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) it is very much clear that considering the fact that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to represent his case before the Assessing Officer, learned Commissioner (Appeals) took the responsibility upon himself to inquire into the matter and in the process has called for necessary evidences, not only from the assessee, but from the concerned bank through the assessee. After examining the evid....