Addition for cash payment to builder in succeeding AY cannot be made in AY in dispute

Surendra Ramdhar Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

ITAT Condoned a 259-Day Delay in Filing Appeal Citing Medical Treatment

The case saw the Assessee, Surendra Ramdhar Yadav, appealing against an order passed under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, there was a significant delay in filing the appeal, which the assessee explained was due to medical treatment. Despite opposition from the Departmental Representative (DR), the tribunal decided to condone the delay.

While the assessee failed to support his claim with medical documents, the tribunal noted that the DR did not refute the stated reason effectively. More significantly, the tribunal observed that the assessee had a fair chance of succeeding based on the merits of the case.

Addition for cash payment to builder in succeeding Assessment year (AY) cannot be made in Assessment year in dispute

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.