TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) on 31.08.2024. The accountant who was looking after the income tax matters and having access to Income Tax Portal did not verify/ check the Portal at the appropriate time and thus, he was having no information about the said appellate order having been uploaded on the ITBA Portal on 31.08.2024 and thus, missed to communicate the same to assessee at the appropriate time. It was sometime in the month of August, 2025 when the assessee enquired from the said accountant about preparation of his ITR for the current A.Y 2025-26 from office of the tax advocate at Kolkata, it was then informed about the said order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) having been uploaded on the Portal on 31.08.2024 and a copy was forwarded to him for his information. Immediately after having come to know about the said order, the appeal was filed before tribunal with delay of 326 days. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said delay in filing this appeal is unintentional and for bona fide and reasonable cause. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessee was not negligent in filing this appeal but for some unavoidable reasons and circumstances as stated above, it could....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts is required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688, ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.08.2019, declaring total income of Rs.25,22,240/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) the Act on 29.10.2019. The Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Delhi conducted a search action u/s 132 of the Act on 06.02.2019, in the case of Shri Avtar Singh Kochar during which certain incriminating materials were found and seized. These materials were in the form of digital evidences, conversations and WhatsApp Chats....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....55 taxmann.com 155 (SC)/[2023] 295 Taxman 612 (SC)/[2023] 458 ITR 437 (SC)[26-09-2023] and Madras High Court in case of Harigovind vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Non-corporate [2025] 180 taxmann.com 197 (Madras)[28-10-2025]. The Ld. Authorised Representative therefore, prayed that the notice u/s 153C of the Act dated 13.12.2022, and also the consequent assessment are bad in law and may kindly be quashed. 4.2. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the proceedings were initiated u/s 153C of the Act vide notice dated 13.12.2022, after a search was conducted on Shri Avtar Singh Kochar on 06.02.2019. During the course of search certain incriminating materials were found and seized which were in the form of conversation and WhatsApp Chats between Shri Avtar Singh Kocar and the assessee. We note that the satisfaction note of the Ld. AO of the searched person dated 21.10.2021, was received by the Ld. AO of the assessee on 31.01.2022. We find that the satisfaction note mentioned the seized documents in the form of soft copy of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of materials and as per the first proviso, the same date would apply for the purpose of abatement also. When such being the case, no other date will come into picture for the purpose of determination of initiation of search for other person. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasjit Singh (supra), wherein, it was held on the aspect as to whether the first proviso to Section 153C would apply only for the purpose of abatement of pending proceedings or otherwise. 45. When a similar contention was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Jasjit Singh (supra), the same was recorded in the said judgement as "..The revenue argued that the proviso to Section 153C(1), is confined in its application to the question of abatement". However, while deciding the said issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court had arrived at a conclusion and rendered its judgement by stating that ".the revenue's argument is insubstantial and without merit".. When such being the case, it is clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court had rejected the contention of the revenue that "th....