TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reopened the case of the assessee, issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, assessment was framed, and addition was made to the income of the assessee both on account of the investment made in the immovable property, which was arrived at by including the cost of acquisition of the property, as well as the other charges paid with regard to stamp duty and stamp charges in cash, resulting in an addition of Rs. 19,89,490/- comprising of Rs. 17,11,000/- the purchase consideration of the property and Rs. 2,78,490/- the other expenses incurred for purchase of property. Addition also was made of the difference between the stamp duty value of the property and the actual consideration paid by invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and amounting to Rs. 9,13,035/-(26,24,035-17,11,000). 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who noted the appeal to be delayed for filing by 111 days, and he did not condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the assessee's appeal as non-maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicant. 6. Before entering and dealing with any of the grounds raised by the assessee on merits or any legal ground raised, it is imperative to first deal with the ground raised by the assessee, challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's appeal as non-maintainable by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before it. The assessee has raised the said issue in Ground No.1. 7. The order of Ld. CIT(A) reveals the reason stated by the assessee for delay to be as under:- 5.21 In the present case, there is a delay of approximately 111 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has acknowledged this delay in Form No. 35 and, in this regard, has stated as under: "The assessee being lady was not guided by her counsel during reassessment proceeding as well as to file appeal after completion of proceeding u/s 147. The assessee has enged new consel to guide and comply the department notices as well to file appeal. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed to kindly codone the delay in filing appeal." 8. The Ld. CIT(A), has found the reason so given by the assessee to not be sufficient cause for condoning the delay, holding at para 5.22 of hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee was a small taxpayer having filed return declaring income of Rs. 3,15,290/- only. There is no history of the assessee on record before us, revealing that she had been subjected to any assessment proceedings in the past. Therefore, it is fair enough to believe that, being a small taxpayer and a lady and not guided by a Professional, she was unaware of the technicalities of law, which resulted in the delay in filing of present appeal before us. 10. Further, we have noted that in the assessment framed in the hands of the assessee the addition made to her income is multiple times to that returned by the assessee. That while, the assessee had returned income of Rs. 3 lakhs odd, the addition made to her income amounts in all approximately to Rs. 30 lakhs, which is 10 times, the income returned by her. Courts have consistently held that, when technicalities of delay are pitted against the interest of justice, the interest of justice should prevail. Undoubtedly, if the assessee's appeal is dismissed on account of delay it would result in the assessee being taxed on income multiple times to that returned by her without being given an opportunity of hearing at all. 11. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h cheque No.000001 dated 21.12.2016 through Andhra Bank M.K. Plaza, Nanad Vihar Jaipur-21. The copy of the Bank statement of the assessee of Bank of Baroda through which payment of Rs. 3 lakhs was made for the purchase of land by the assessee and copy of which was placed before us at paper book page No.29-30 reveals amount received by RTGS and NEFT from Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam of Rs. 2 lakh and Rs. 1 lakh respectively on 07.11.2016 and 09.11.2016 respectively, which immediately thereafter was issued on 12.11.2016 to Anita Bora the seller of the land. Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam undisputedly, is the husband of the assessee whose return of income had also been filed by the assessee to the Authorities below reflecting income of Rs. 10,53,962/- returned to tax for the impugned year. Copy of the return of income was placed before us at paper book page Nos. 34 to 37. 18. Considering the above, the assessee's contention that she had received Rs. 3 lakhs from her husband is clearly established from the facts on record itself. 19. The Authorities Below, we have noted, rejected the contention of the assessee for the reason that the assessee did not submit any document to prove the identity, cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... book page No.55 to 56 reflects payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to Anju Sharma on 20.12.2016 therefore, the fact of the assessee receiving Rs. 2 lakhs from Anju Sharma is also corroborated with the documents which were there before both the AO and Ld. CIT(A). 22. With regards to the existence of FD, the assessee had furnished the statement of account of Andhara Bank before us at paper book page No.31 and 32 wherein the fact of the assessee having created FDs of Rs. 2,50,000 on 29th March 2016 and Rs. 7 lakh on 4th of August 2016 is recorded, and it was these FDs which were prematurely encashed on 21st December 2016, resulting in credits of Rs. 2,25,000/- and Rs. 6,30,000/- in her bank account which were utilized for making investment in loan. Therefore, the source of investment in property to the tune of Rs. 9,25,000/- from FDs is also duly corroborated. 23. The findings of the AO rejecting assessee's explanation, we have noted, is that the assessee had failed to establish the identity of the relatives, their credit worthiness, and genuineness of transaction claimed as gift. Further, the signed letter did not contain confirmation of receipt of gift by the assessee. And with regards to....