TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en on 19.03.2014, from out of explainable sources. 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 2 filed, the Learned First Appellate Authority in the facts and circumstances of the case is not justified in confirming action of the AO in bringing Rs. 5,07,481/- to tax@60% u/s 115BBE ignoring the legal position that such levy is applicable from 01.04.2017 only. 4. The Appellant prays for leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31-03-2018, declaring an income of Rs.2,65,500/-. The assessee's return of income was initially processed under Section 143(1) of issued. 3. the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under the "Limited Scrutiny" category through the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS), and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO, on verification of the bank loan schedules of the assessee, observed that the assessee had availed two personal loans from the Central Bank of India, viz, (i). Loan Account No.33308110....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee had been forwarding all the communications and documents received by him to his then counsel and was under a bona fide belief that the matter was being duly 10. pursued. However, the said counsel neither informed the assessee about the dismissal of the appeal by the Additional/JCIT (Appeals) nor advised him to avail the statutory remedy of filing a further appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that it was only upon receipt of an email dated 22 12-2025 and a communication dated 03-01-2026 from HDFC Bank Ltd., informing the assessee that the balance lying in his bank account had been remitted to the Income-tax Department pursuant to attachment proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) of the Act by the ITO, Ward-1, Nandyal, that he became aware that his appeal before the first appellate authority had already been dismissed. The Ld. AR submitted that immediately thereafter the assessee consulted one of his customers, viz., Shri Anil Kumar, Chartered Accountant, who advised him to approach a tax consultant at Hyderabad for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Acting upon the said advice, the assessee promptly engaged another counsel, who filed the present appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cribed period and not because of any mala fide or deliberate conduct on the part of the assessee. At the same time, we are of the considered view that a litigant is expected to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing his legal remedies. Although the assessee before us cannot be held solely responsible for the delay occasioned by the lapse on the part of his earlier counsel, but he too ought to have remained vigilant regarding the status of his appeal. Therefore, some degree of lack of vigilance on his part also cannot be completely ruled out. 15. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and bearing in mind that a liberal and justice-oriented approach ought to be adopted while dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT [(2024) 166 taxmann.com 37 (SC)], we are of the considered view that the delay of 104 days involved in filing the present appeal deserves to be condoned. However, keeping in view the lack of due vigilance on the part of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the delay of 104 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2016, enhancing the rate of tax, is prospective in nature and would, therefore, apply only from Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards. Consequently, according to the Ld. AR, the enhanced rate could not have been applied to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2017-18. 20. We find substance in the Ld. AR's contention, as the said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Deepak Maratha v. Union of India & Ors., CWP No.3625 of 2020, dated 27 05-2026. The Hon'ble High Court, after examining the scheme of the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 and the amended provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act, had concluded that although the amendment came into force with effect from 01-04-2017, the enhanced rate of tax could operate only prospectively and would, therefore, apply from Financial Year 2017-18, corresponding to Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that the amending enactment does not contain any express provision conferring retrospective operation upon the amended provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. At this stage, we deem it apposite to ob....