Inderjeet Singh Makhija, Hyderabad, ... vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal30 June 2015

CitationITA No.247 of 2015 Inderjeet Singh Makhija Hyderabad

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal reasoned that where the assessee's delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) is explained by an affidavit setting out the facts, the interest of justice is served by condoning the delay and remitting the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits, rather than leaving the dismissal in limine in place.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

ITA No.247 of 2015 Inderjeet Singh Makhija HyderabadIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALHyderabad 'A' Bench, HyderabadBefore Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member& Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant MemberITA No.247/Hyd/2015(Assessment year: 2006-07)Sri Inderjeet Singh Makhija ACIT, Circle 4(1)Hyderabad Vs. HyderabadPAN-GQPS 2107 N(Appellant) (Respondent)For Assessee : Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Revenue : Shri Ramakrishna BandiDate of Hearing : 2.6.2015Date of Pronouncement : 30.6.2015ORDERPer Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against theorder of the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad dated 30.01.2015 relating toA.Y 2006-07.2. Briefly stated, assessee is an individual and is into thebusiness activity of "Auto, Finance and Brokerage" under thetrade name of M/s. Preet Motors. There are two more tradingconcerns in the name of M/s New Preet Motors and M/s. SangeetAutomobiles under the proprietorship of Mr.Satpreet Singh andMr.Sangeet Singh respectively both of whom are the sons of theassessee. All the three concerns are being operated from onepremises.

Page 1 of 3 ITA No.247 of 2015 Inderjeet Singh Makhija Hyderabad

3. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on the assessee's premises on 29.11.2007. Consequently, assessments for A.Ys 2002-03 to 2008-09 have been covered by scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T Act, 1961. Notices u/s 153A of the Act were issued. In response to the notice, assessee filed return of income on 30.07.2009 with a net income of Rs.1,38,393. After scrutiny, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on 31.12.2009 determining the total income at Rs.1,17,56,967 as against the income admitted of Rs.1,38,393 for A.Y 2006-07.

4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A). Since the CIT(A)'s orders were not allowed, assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT. ITAT has directed the AO to give deduction 30% towards bad debts. AO however, adopted undisclosed interest income of Rs.7,82,303 erroneously without applying 30% deduction towards bad debts

5. Aggrieved by the order, assessee is in appeal before us. It is submitted before us that the CIT (A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine in rejecting the petition for condonation of delay in as much as the delay in filing of the appeal was explained the delay by submitting affidavit.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of the considered opinion that having regard to the facts of the case, the interest of justice would be met, if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to condone the delay in the light of the facts cited in the

Page 2 of 3 ITA No.247 of 2015 Inderjeet Singh Makhija Hyderabad

affidavit filed before the CIT (A). Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (A) and we remit the matter to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh disposal of the appeal.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd June, 2015.

Sd/ Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Inturi Rama Rao) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Hyderabad, dated 3rd June, 2015.

Vnodan/sps Copy to:

1. P.Murali & Co. CAs, 6-3-655/2/3 1st Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082

2. ACIT, Circle 4(1) Hyderabad

3. CIT(A) -I Hyderabad

4. CIT - 1, Hyderabad

5. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad

6. Guard File

By Order

Page 3 of 3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free