Held, that as the assessee was pursuing remedy by way of application under section\u00a0154\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Act, 1961, which was dismissed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is\u00a0 condoned. Held that the sole basis for the initiation of the proceedings under section\u00a0148\u00a0was the information received from the National e-Assessment Centre, according to which, the sale deed had been executed\u00a0 for a sale consideration in respect of a property measuring 11 cents situated in Kavoor village, Mangalore Taluk, wherein the assessee was neither the purchaser nor the vendor. On the other hand, the assessee produced her sale deed showing sale of a property by M measuring 0-05.75 acres situated in Kotekar village, Mangalore Taluk for a sale consideration lower than that shown in the former document. The assessee had produced the source for the transaction as loan availed of from a bank. The Assessing Officer had made addition on the basis of wrong assumption of facts. The addition made by the Assessing Officer under section\u00a069A\u00a0is deleted. Tribunal also held that without the addition, the assessee\u2019s income did not exceed the maximum amount and, hence, is\u00a0 not liable to tax. Therefore, no advance tax was payable and the invocation of section\u00a0249(4)\u00a0by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified. (AY. 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 69A : Unexplained money-Delay of 89 days in filing of appeal-condoned-Unexplained investments-Not filed the return-Disputed sale consideration-Addition made on wrong assumption of facts-Addition is deleted-Income not exceeding the maximum amount-Provision of section. 249(4) cannot be invoked. [S.115BBE, 147 148, 154] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-dB4","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52270","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52270"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52270\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52271,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52270\/revisions\/52271"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}