Alpesh Premji Dedhia vs. ITO–Ward 33(1)(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed his return of income on 16.10.2018 for A.Y. 2018-19, disclosing total income of Rs. 10,39,020/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee with regard to the transaction of property calling upon the assessee to show the reason of difference between transaction amount and value determined by stamp valuation authority. Assessee responded and replied to the notices issued by learned assessing officer. After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 23,21,000/- u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal upon rejection of assessee’s delay condonation application. Aggrieved by the impugned order, assessee filed this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has passed impugned order without considering the delay condonation application moved by the assessee.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay condonation application should be considered?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Chandrakant Kantilal Shah vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai bench

• ITA No. 3599/MUM/2024

  Mumbai bench

• Revanth Reddy Anumala vs. The ACIT

  Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench benchAY 2017-2018Allowed

• Gurindersingh Indrajeetsingh Nayyar v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Nagpur bench

• Shri Satabdi Developers Pvt. ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 10(2)

  Kolkata benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Reba Roy vs. AO, Ward-2(1), Coochbehar

  Kolkata bench