INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
C.D. Rao, A.M. -
(1.) THIS appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Gwalior, dated 16-1-2006 for the assessment year 2001-02.
(2.) This appeal was initially disposed of by the Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench vide order dated 29-1-2007 by stating as under:
Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances and other material on record, we find that this is not a fit case for condoning the delay and, as such, while rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee, we decline to entertain the appeal of the assessee and dismiss the same.
Aggrieved by this the assessee preferred an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Misc. Appln. Income-tax Appeal No. 57 of 2007 reported at (2008) 4 DTR (MP) 323. Against this the Hon'ble High Court has condoned the delay by observing as under:
On perusal of aforesaid decisions it is clear that in the matter relating to the condonation of delay there has to be a liberal approach. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal we are absolutely convinced that it has taken recourse to hyper-technical view that the assessee has not been able to explain that sufficient cause did exist warranting condonation of delay. It is also worth mentioning that the delay was of only 38 days and an explanation in that regard was preferred. In view of the aforesaid the order passed by the Tribunal on 29-1-2007 in ITA No. 133/Jab/2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits.
Respectfully following the Hon'ble High Court's order the case has been fixed for hearing on merits. The following grounds are raised by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal:
(i) That the reopening of assessment for the year 2000-01 is erroneous, arbitrary and unjustified.
(ii) That no valid reason exists for reopening of the assessment case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Hence the notice as well as assessment is illegal and unjustified.
(iii) That the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 in total income for the assessment year 2000-01, which in fact was agriculture income is erroneous, arbitrary and unjustified.
(3.) AT the time of hearing before us the first two grounds are not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee. Hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.