TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") dated 26.03.2022 for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 17.02.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honorable CIT(A) violated Section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act by passing the impugned order on 17th February 2025, the same day the appellant was directed to file submissions, thereby depriving the appellant of a reasonable opport....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....z., (i) the assessee as per "Form 26Q" had received rent on which tax was deducted at source u/s 194I(b): Rs. 1,10,56,000/-; and (ii) the assessee had received interest income, but had not filed her return of income for the subject year, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 29-03-2021 was issued to the assessee. As the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings failed to file the requisite details, therefore, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the "Act" dated 26.03.2022 made an addition of the aforesaid rent receipt and interest income aggregating to Rs. 1,10,56,128/- 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Ostensibly, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him. The ld.AR to buttress his aforesaid claim has drawn support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 560 (Mad). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble High Court, had observed, that once the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal on merits, then, the only inference that could be drawn was that the delay in filing the appeal had been condoned. The Ld. AR submitted that now when the CIT(A) in the present case had disposed of the appeal on the issues based on which the impugned order was assailed before him, viz., (i) as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act; and (ii) t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on misconceived facts, and thus, liable to be rejected. 10. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. 11. Apropos the contention of the Ld. AR that now when the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal on both the issues based on which the impugned order was assailed before him, viz., (i) as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act; and (ii) the merits of the addition of Rs. 1.10 crore (approx.) made by the A.O., therefore, there was no justification on his part in observing that the delay involved in the filing of the appeal does not merit to be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old that the Tribunal was in error in not condoning the delay. The question regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's holding that the delay is not to be condoned is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." (emphasis supplied by us) 12. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, are of the firm conviction, that as the CIT(A) did not stop with the order declining to condone the delay but had considered the matter on both the issues based on which the impugned order was assailed before him, viz., (i) as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O. for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act; and (ii) the merits of the addition of Rs. 1.10 crore (approx.) made by the A.O.,....