1995 PTD 1233

I.TAS. NOS. 539 AND 540/LB OF 1992-93, DECIDED ON 19TH MAY, 1994. Versus I.TAS. NOS. 539 AND 540/LB OF 1992-93, DECIDED ON 19TH MAY, 1994.

Citation1995 PTD 1233

CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal

ORDER

The two appeals by a registered firm deriving income from rice husking business are directed against C.I.T. (Appeals) Orders, dated 13-10-1992 whereby first appeals in respect of assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 were dismissed for being time-barred.

2. The assessment orders for the two years were admittedly served on the appellant on 15-8-1992 whereas appeals were filed in the office of C.I.T. (Appeals) on 15-9-1992. The appeals having been filed on 31st day instead of 'within 30 days were dismissed in limine.

3. It was contended by Authorized Representative of the appellant that delay of one day was caused by a bona fide mistake. It was explained that the month in which assessment orders were received was assumed to be of 30 days as is generally taken and thus the A.R. remained under a wrong impression that 15-9-1992 (instead of 14-9-1992) was the last date for filing of appeals. From the circumstances of the case the delay appears to be a result of bona fide mistake which could easily have been condoned by the C.I.T. (Appeals).

4. So far as merits of the case are concerned the two assessments were made on income of Rs.50,000 and Rs.65,000 as against declared income of Rs.13,717 and Rs.50,501. In view of the unverifiability of accounts the assessing officer was justified in rejecting the declared income. However, estimate of income for assessment year 1990-91 at Rs.50,000 without any material indicating volume of business during this year was obviously excessive and unjustified whereas estimate of income for assessment year 1991-92 at Rs.65,000 against the declared income of Rs.50,501 was quite reasonable and fair. Considering the fact that declared income for assessment year 1990-91 was only Rs.13,717 income for this year is reduced to Rs.40,000 whereas assessment for assessment year 1991-92 is confirmed.

5. The two appeals are disposed of as above.

M.BA./18/T Order accordingly.