Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2013 (1) TMI 1075

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted on behalf of the assessee that the appeal is barred by limitation since it has been filed after delay of 38 days in filing. In this regard, the contention of the assessee as stated in condonation petition is that the assessee's counsel has undergone cataract operation in the left eye. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation prescribed. The submissions raised by the assessee have not been seriously controverted by the Revenue. 3. We have considered the issue of delay above said and gone through the petition. Since the averments made by the assessee in the affidavit have neither been denied nor controverted by the Revenue, we are of the opinion that the assessee has explained the reasons causing delay in filing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the assessee is an "individual", who earns rental income. For the impugned assessment year, he filed his return on 16.05.2007 declaring income of Rs. 1,10,880/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 17.07.2007. In the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year, the assessee had constructed a building and estimated its cost at Rs. 17,80,200/-. In the assessment proceedings of succeeding assessment year i.e. 2008-09, the Assessing Officer had referred the valuation of the construction to the DVO who valued the construction cost at Rs. 41,71,518/-. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the difference in the cost of construction as stated by the assessee as well as that ascertained by the DVO amounted to unexplained inv....