AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has just passed the order. 3. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 23 days on the ground that the reason of delay given by the assessee is not acceptable. Since participation in a religious activity is a voluntary act and cannot override statutory obligations. Personal religious commitments, however genuine, cannot be treated as a sufficient cause for noncompliance with mandatory timelines prescribed under the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) has given a reason in Para 3.1 & 3.2 of CIT(A) order u/s 250 mainly on the ground that during his personal travelling for religious purpose there is no bar to verify its email and file and appeal within the time limit of 30 days and therefore the condonation of delay is not justified. It is submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to unavoidable personal circumstances (religious activity) beyond the control of the appellant. The appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits, and no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned, whereas grave injustice would be caused to the appellant if the appeal is dismissed on technical grounds. Therefore the non a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee is an individual engaged in agricultural activities and also carrying on business in trading of food grains and dairy products, who filed his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs. 4,34,110/-. Subsequently, based on information received through the Insight Portal under the e-Verification Scheme, 2021, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had entered into a high-value transaction viz. purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs. 76,01,100/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased rural agricultural land situated at Village Bakrana, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad jointly with his brother, wherein the assessee's share was 50% amounting to Rs. 38,00,550/-. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of investment in such land. Although the assessee submitted replies along with certain details which included bank statements, ledger accounts and purchase deed, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee having filed written submissions and supporting evidences. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the entire material available on record, including the assessment order, the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), and the detailed written submissions along with documentary evidences furnished by the learned counsel for the assessee. The controversy before us lies in a narrow compass, namely, whether the learned CIT(Appeals) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 23 days and dismissing the appeal in limine, thereby depriving the assessee of adjudication on merits in respect of addition made under section 69 of the Act. 8. On a careful appreciation of facts, it emerges that the assessee had purchased rural agricultural land jointly with his brother, wherein his share of investment was Rs. 38,00,550/-. The Assessing Officer has not disputed either the factum of purchase or the extent of ownership. The addition has been made solely on the premise that the assessee allegedly failed to correlate the payments made throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the length of delay is not material and that refusal to condone delay may result in meritorious matters being thrown out at the threshold. 12. Applying the above settled legal position to the facts of the present case, we find that the delay of 23 days is marginal and the explanation offered by the assessee does not reflect any deliberate negligence or mala fide intent. On the contrary, the assessee has demonstrated that he has substantive grounds on merits supported by documentary evidences, which require proper adjudication. Denial of such opportunity would result in grave prejudice to the assessee, particularly when an addition of Rs. 38,00,550/- has been made under section 69 of the Act. 13. Coming to the merits of the addition under section 69 of the Act, we find that the addition of Rs. 38,00,550/- represents the assessee's 50% share in the purchase of agricultural land jointly acquired with his brother for a total consideration of Rs. 76,01,100/-. The factum of purchase, the identity of co-owners and the quantum of investment attributable to the assessee are not in dispute. Th....