2026 (8) TMI 552

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. 2. The appeal filed by the Department is delayed by 83 days. The AO has filed an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated in the condonation petition, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for late filing of the appeal and no latches can be attributed to the Department. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- i) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, to which no return of income was filed. Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued. In response, the assessee furnished copies of the sale deed and sale agreement and contended that the HUF had not purchased or registered any immovable property during the relevant previous year. It was submitted that the property had been purchased by the Karta, Shri Ramachandran, in his individual capacity and only by inadvertence the PAN of the HUF was mentioned in the sale deed. The AO, however, rejected the explanation as being devoid of merit and completed the reassessment by making an additi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. The Ld.AR reiterated the submissions advanced before the lower authorities and submitted that the impugned property had been purchased by the Karta in his individual capacity and not by the HUF. It was further submitted that the documentary evidence, including the sale agreement, patta and encumbrance certificate, clearly established the individual ownership of the property and that the mere mention of the HUF's PAN in the sale deed, due to an inadvertent error, could not lead to the conclusion that the property belonged to the HUF. The Ld. AR, therefore, supported the order of the FAA and prayed that the same be upheld. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short issue arising....