TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "All the grounds of appeal in this appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. Reopening of Proceedings u/x. 148 of the Act 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre ("the CIT(A)") and the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), Vadodara (the AO") erred in fact and in law in reopening the proceedings of the Appellant w/s. 148 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was barred by limitation u/s. 149 of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and law in making the assessment order on substantive basis whereas the assessment should have been made on protective basis. 12. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making the assessment order without giving a proper opportunity of giving heard. 13. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition u/s. 234A of the Act. 14. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition u/s. 234B of the Act. 15. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee and his brothers, wherein the transaction was admitted. However, the Assessing Officer observed that the alleged payers, Shri Girish R. Patel and Shri Indravadan R. Patel, failed to produce any credible evidence to substantiate the source of such large cash payments. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- received by the assessee represented consideration for relinquishment of rights in ancestral property and, in the absence of corroborative proof regarding the source of payment, the same was liable to be taxed as "Income from Other Sources." Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271F, and 271(1)(b) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were carried out under the Faceless Assessment Scheme in accordance with due process. The CIT(Appeals), therefore, dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. At the outset, we note that the present appeal is time barred by 293 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along-with an Affidavit for delay of 293 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond its control. The assessee submitted that that the order of the learned CIT(A) was recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of the explanation offered. It was held that unless the delay is found to be deliberate or due to mala fide intention, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, and considering the reasons explained by the assessee, which in our view constitute a sufficient cause, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the present appeal deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. On merits 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case have already been narrated herein....