TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 28.07.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.20,27,180. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The assessing officer (AO) completed the assessment by making additions towards Interest from Bank Deposits of Rs.18,714, unexplained cash deposits into bank for Rs.5,00,000 and difference in salary income declared and as per Form 26AS to the tune of Rs.6,54,106. The AO has also considered the returned income as Rs.21,43,360 instead of Rs.20,27,180 which resulted in an addition of Rs.1,16,180. The assessee in the appeal filed before the CIT(A) did not contend the issue of addition made towards bank interest. On the addition made towards difference in salary income the assessee contended only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as called for Remand Report that during the course of appeal proceedings, the AR of the appellant filed evidences to explain the issues raised by the Assessing Officer and also submitted that all the evidences filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings were not taken into account while passing the assessment order. The evidences filed by the appellant were forwarded for his comments and report. Accordingly the Assessing Officer has sent his comments vide his report dated 05.03.2018 as under: During the course of scrutiny proceedings the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of being cash deposit and no proper explanation thereof. It is seen from the material available on record as well as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statements filed by the assessee and the explanations offered by him has treated the said Rs.5,00,000 as unexplained cash deposit brought it to tax" The AO has not made any verifications of the facts to examine the issue at length. Thus, the AO simply brushed aside the reference made, by simply concluding that the then AO has considered the explanation in respect of Rs.5,00,000/- while making addition of Rs.5,00,000/- in the impugned order. Therefore you are directed to get the issue thoroughly verified in the light of the submissions made by the appellant and send a detailed report in this regard at the earliest. If need be, the AO may call the appellant for discussing the facts of the case and submissions made in this regard. The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay. The assessee also raised grounds contending the additions arising out of the issues not adjudicated by the CIT(A)'s order which the AO in the order giving effect dated 27.08.2024 has retained. For the purpose of adjudication first we will consider the issue of condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld AR submitted that since the appellate order stated that the appeal is allowed, the assessee was under the bonafide belief that he is not aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) and that accordingly no appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. The ld AR further submitted that the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OGE is that all the additions have been retained except the addition made towards cash deposit for which the CIT(A) has given specific relief. Before proceeding further, we will look at some of the legal dictum laid down with regard to the issue of condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) while considering the issue of condonation of delay, laid down certain principles as reproduced here under :- (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the bonafide belief that he has been granted full relief by the CIT(A) which is substantiated by the finding of the CIT(A) in para 6 of the CIT(A)'s order. 9. Now the next question is whether the delay of 6 years which as per the contentions of the revenue is inordinate and excessive, can be condoned. We have to examine delay as excessive or inordinate based on whether there is a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time by the assessee and in our view when there is a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court shou....