TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....022 for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is observed from the record that there is a delay of 337 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant contents of affidavit are extracted herein below for reference: "1. The petitioner is the wife and legal representative of Late Sri Malleswara Rao Alumuri. 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 ..... 6. In consequent to the order passed U/s. 263 of the Act, AO passed consequential order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 31/3/2023 wherein income was estimated on the deposits made in the bank account. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity. 12. With this background the appeal against the impugned order passed U/s. 263 of the Act was filed on 17/4/2023 as against the due date of 15/03/2022 thus causing a delay of 337 days. Further, the affidavit of the regular Chartered Accountant is also enclosed which is self explanatory. 13 ......" 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 337 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee at Rs. 3,20,860/-. Later on, the Ld. Pr. CIT, Vijayawada by exercising his powers vested U/s. 263 of the Act and on verification of the assessment record, it was held that the assessment order was passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made by the Ld. AO and thereby treated the assessment order as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT issued show-cause notice U/s. 263 of the Act on 22/12/2021 and was served on the same date wherein the assessee was called for certain information and his objections, if any, against the proposed revision of the assessment. Since there is no response, the Ld. Pr. CIT issued another notice on 7/1/2022....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, in this view of the matter, the order passed U/s. 263 of the Act is liable to be set-aside. 4. For these and other grounds that are to be urged at the time of hearing of the case, the appellant prays that the revision order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT U/s. 263 be set-aside, in the interest of justice." 5. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the revision order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT U/s. 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the order passed by the Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO while passing the assessment order has considered the submissions of the Legal Representat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cepted the submission / explanation of the assessee and treated the cash deposits as explained without causing any enquiries. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT on verification of the return of income filed by the assessee it is noticed that the gross receipts were shown at Rs. 57,48,000/- only and also there is no evidence on record to prove that the entire cash deposits of Rs. 1,86,15,610/- were made out of the business receipts. The Ld. DR also submitted that during the revision proceedings, the contention of the assessee is that the cash was received from various parties towards sale proceeds and deposited in the bank account and the assessee gets only commission. However, before the Ld. Pr. CIT the assessee did not furnish any details of persons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess receipts as explained by the assessee's son Mr. Chinna Rao. However, it is apparent from the return of income filed by the assessee, the assessee has disclosed turnover of Rs. 57,48,000/- and admitted total income @ 8% of the turnover. It is also noticed from the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT that though the assessee claimed that the assessee had received cash from various parties towards sale proceeds of Tomotos and deposited the cash in the bank account, the assessee did not produce any details of purchasers of Tomotos and transactions made with them. The onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of source for cash deposits along with the documentary evidence. It is also apparent from the order of the Ld. AO that the Ld. AO had not ....