TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Chartered Accountant had inadvertently failed to take immediate action. Upon realizing the oversight, the Chartered Accountant filed the present appeal, resulting in a delay of 63 days. The assessee contended that this delay was unintentional and beyond their control, and requested that it be condoned so the appeal could be adjudicated on its merits. The ld. DR raised no objection to the condonation of the delay. 3. Having considered the facts, I find that the assessee has provided a reasonable justification for the 63-day delay in filing the appeal, which was caused by the Chartered Accountant's oversight. As no mala fide intention can be attributed to the assessee, and in the interest of fairness and justice, I am inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and I proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits. 4. Taking up now the appeal of the assessee for adjudication, the issue arising in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in his bank account to the tune of Rs. 14,98,000/- during demonetization period remaining unexplained. None appeared during assessment proceedings t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential demand notice issued u/s 156 dated.27.12.2019 are bad in law for the want of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before completion of assessment. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,27,307/- out of total addition of Rs. 14,98,000/- made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act being alleged unexplained money without appreciating facts and law of the case properly. 5. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 3,36,700/- being profit as per profit and loss account submitted by the appellant without appreciating fact that assessee has already filed Income Tax return declaring above profit and paid due amount of taxes. 6. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in enhancing the assessment by an amount of Rs.3,05,000/-being alleged unexplained cash deposit without appreciating fact and law of the case properly and without issuing notice of enhancement as mandated u/s 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise." 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out at Bar that the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds to be dealt with by me are the revised grounds raised by the assessee vide its letter dated 25.7.2024 and grounds of appeal numbered 4 to 6 as reproduced above. 12. Taking up first the legal grounds raised by the assessee in its revised grounds, the assessee in the said ground, has challenged the validly of the order passed by the AO in the present case under section 144 of the Act. His argument before me was to the effect that, the assessment in the present case had been framed without the AO issuing the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. That therefore the assessment order passed was not a valid order. He pointed out that the AO had treated the return filed by the assessee as invalid since it was delayed and accordingly therefore had gone on to frame assessment u/s 144 of the Act, doing away with the need to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that this act of the AO in treating the delayed return filed by the assessee as invalid was not in accordance with law. That there was no provision in law treating delayed return as invalid. That therefore the return filed by the assessee was a valid return and assessment could have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A(i) of the Act as under: 234A. (1) Where the return of income for any assessment year under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) 43[or sub-section (8A)] of section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, is furnished after the due date, or is not furnished, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the date immediately following the due date, and, - 15. Referring to the above, he pointed out that the section 234A recognizes the filing of the belated returns in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and mandates levy of interest thereon, thus, recognizing the belated returns filed as valid. He, therefore, stated that the order of the AO without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not in accordance with the law, and needed to be quashed. In this regard he drew my attention to various decisions viz: i) Janak Kansara Vs. DCIT, (2008) 116 TTJ 415 (Ahd- ITAT); ii) PCIT Vs. Kamladevi Sharma, ITA No.197/2008 dated 10.07.2018 (Rajasthan) 16. The ld. DR, on other hand, pointed out that the AO had stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the assessee that the AO could not have treated the belated return filed by the assessee as defective return, I find merit in the same. The ld. counsel for the assessee has clearly brought out the provisions of law, which allow the return to be filed belatedly in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, imposing or attracting only interest on the delay period of filing of the return. Thus, in fact, validating the return filed. 19. In the light of this provision in law of levy of interest on the belated filing of the return, I, therefore agree with the ld. counsel for the assessee that the belated return filed cannot be treated as invalid, since this would render the provisions of section 234A otiose. I draw support from the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Janak Kansara (supra), wherein the Bench was seized with an identical issue, whether the return filed in block assessment under section 158BC of the Act was belated and treated as invalid by the AO. The ITAT noted the provision under the block assessment scheme pari-materia to section 234A of the Act for levy of interest for delay in filing of the return for block assessment under section 158BFA of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me prescribed in the notice is invalid or non est then the above enactment under s. 158BFA becomes redundant. It is an established rule of interpretation that one should not interpret a provision in such a manner so as to make what has been enacted in other provisions of the Act as redundant. The legislature does not enact anything in the statute without any meaning or purpose Thus, in our considered opinion a block return which is filed beyond the time-limit prescribed in the notice but before completion of the assessment is a valid return and the same cannot be ignored by the AO. Even in the instant case we find that the AO has duly taken into consideration the block return filed by the assessee. He has duly taken into consideration the income and the other facts disclosed by the assessee in the block return. From the assessment order it is not revealed that the AO has treated the return filed by the assessee as invalid or non est Thus, we find no force in the arguments of the learned Departmental Representative that in the instant case no valid return was filed by the assessee. In the above situation, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High ....