2025 (5) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A) submits that the delay was primarily due to non-receipt of hearing notices and appellate order, which were erroneously sent to incorrect email addresses not belonging to the Appellant. It is stated that the correct email ID, as per Form 35 and e-filing profile, was [email protected], whereas communications were wrongly addressed to [email protected] and [email protected]. 3. The assessee became aware of the appellate order only on 04.10.2024, when his Chartered Accountant accessed the e-filing portal while responding to a notice under section 142(1) of the Act for AY 2020-21. Subsequently, after consulting present counsel and collating necessary documents, the appeal was filed on 27.11.2024 with the delay of 211 days....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nly. However, the AO found that the assessee in return has declared full value of consideration at Rs. 2,76,32,116/- only whereas full value of consideration stands at Rs. 4,91,10,780/- only. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that that the suppressed sale consideration to tune of Rs. 2,27,21,046/- has escaped assessment. Hence, the AO reopened the assessment vide issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 7. The AO further found that the assessee has not filed response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and other notices issued thereafter under section 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notices issued to him. Hence, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment as per the provisions of section of 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. In view of non-submission of explanation/documents/ evidences, during the appellate proceedings, it cannot be concluded as to how the order passed by the AO is erroneous and addition should not be made. 7.3. In view of the above discussion, I hereby, uphold the action of the AO and confirm the addition made by the AO in the impugned Order u/s 147 rws 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2022. Accordingly, grounds of appeal are dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The learned AR before u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jointly by the assessee along with three other co-owners. The assessee was a confirming party in the transaction and had received only a proportionate share of the sale proceeds, amounting to Rs. 2,76,32,116/-, which was duly declared in the return of income and is also reflected in Form 26AS. Notably, this fact of joint ownership and proportionate receipt of consideration was also part of the very information on the basis of which the AO had initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Despite being aware of this fact, the AO erroneously attributed the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4.91 crore to the assessee and concluded that he had suppressed income. This approach is factually and legally untenable and does not sustain. 12.2 M....