TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual was a salaried employee of M/s Lemon Tree Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. For AY 2012-13 under consideration, the assessee did not file any return of income despite having taxable income highly exceeding the exemption limit. Therefore, the AO issued notice dated 26.03.2019 u/s 148 initiating the proceeding of assessment u/s 147 and called assessee to file return. But the assessee did not make any compliance. Thereafter, the AO issued multiple reminder-letters as well as notices u/s 142(1) to assessee but the same also remained uncompiled with. Ultimately, the AO resorted to best judgement assessment u/s 144 and finalized assessment vide assessment-order dated 25.11.2019 taking into acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "3. Decision: It is seen that the applicant is a well-qualified person holding responsible position in a premier hospitality company, namely M/s Lemon Tree Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The assessment order u/s. 144/147 was passed on 25.11.2019 and served upon the appellant on the same date electronically. Thus, limitation date for filing of appeal was 24.12.2019. The appellant submits that he was not able to file appeal within time as his tax consultant did not inform him about time limitation in filing of appeal and then the covid pandemic started. Filing of appeal in time is incumbent upon tax payer and not upon his / her tax consultant. Therefore, non-information to appellant from his tax consultant cannot be a legally valid alibi. As f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing demand of Rs. 6,33,310/-. Subsequently, appellant had filed a rectification request against this order dated 25/11/2019 as TDS credit of Rs. 1,44,565/- was not allowed though reflecting in Form 26AS of A.Y. 2012-13. Thereafter, the AO had passed rectification order dated 01/09/2021 while giving credit of TDS as reflected in 26AS. However, no specific discussion was made on the additions made in the base order dated 25/11/2019 i.e. no relief was granted by the AO on the addition made as matter not a mistake apparent from records. Later on, appellant had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 25/09/2021 against rectification order dated 01/09/2021. In the said appeal, addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,26,037/- was challenge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../03/2023 and order u/s 154 r.w.s 250 dated 30/03/2024. Thus, the rectification application filed by the appellant is rejected." [emphasis supplied] (vi) Now, the assessee has filed present appeal against the latest order dated 05.06.2025 passed by CIT(A). 3. Precisely, the assessee's solitary grievance in this appeal is the addition of Rs. 1,26,037/- made by AO u/s 69A on account of unexplained deposits/credits in bank a/c. 4. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case file including the documents filed in Paper-Book and written-submission made by Ld. AR for assessee. 5. Thus, at first we find that assessee initially filed appeal on 23.09.2021 to CIT(A) against AO's order an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... free from doubt. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not, something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions." In present case, the AO passed assessment-order dated 25.11.2019 u/s 144 because of non-compliances made by assessee to various notices issued by AO and made impugned addition u/s 69A on the basis of deposit/credit entries found in bank a....