TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 28.03.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 13.03.2014. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 651 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: "1. That the First Appeal order passed by the Id. CIT(A) was received on 31.03.2023 and according to the statute the Second Appeal should have be filed within 60 days from the date of the order received that is on or before 30.05.2023, but the same is filed on 10.03.2025. Therefore, the delay made of about 649 days in filing of the said Appeal before this Hon'ble forum. 2. That, the Appellant due to frequent cardi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is an admitted position that the words 'sufficient cause' appearing in sub-s. (5) of s. 253 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If explanation does not smack of mala fide or does not put forth a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to such litigant. Further, the length of delay is immaterial, it is the acceptability of the explanation and that is the only criteria for condoning the delay." Therefore, a liberal approach may please be adopted to condone the delay as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be deleted as the order of assessment passed by rejecting the books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act and estimation made @8% from the gross income receipt. E. For that, the addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- as unexplained investment in house construction during the year on the basis of estimation report made by the IIT is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Other grounds will be urged at the time of hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration derived income from execution of contract work in the name and style of his proprietorship concern M/s. Maa Tarini Traders. The assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 24.10.2011 showing tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs for verification but no cash book was produced for verification. On going through the details, the Ld. AO found discrepancies in the books of account maintained by the assessee for the FY 2010-11 relevant to the AY 2011-12 and according to him the books were not reliable and the profit shown by the assessee from the business activity was not accepted as true and correct. Therefore, the Ld. AO rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act and proceeded to estimate the profit of the assessee from the business activity on the gross contract receipts @ 8%. The Ld. AO found that the assessee maintained current account with Union Bank, Keonjhar and the bank account with closing balance of Rs. 1,16,898/- had not been reflected in the book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR who had no objection if the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside as the assessee could not make proper representation before him. 5. We have gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued four notices to the assessee in the course of the appeal but no compliance was made to any of the notices issued. Even before the Ld. AO, the cash book required to be produced was not produced and the net profit rate of 8% was applied on the turnover of Rs. 1,25,43,448/- and further addition was made on account of the closing balance in the current account which was not disclosed. As no evidence was submitted, the only addition of Rs. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. Hence, the Bench was of the view, that considering the facts of the case and as no proper representation was made and the other additions have not been adjudicated upon by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee should be granted another opportunity in the interest of justice to make the required submissions for the reliefs claimed. 7. After examining the fac....