JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dt.25-10-2019 in I.T.A.No.98/Hyd/2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch 'A', Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. The appellant is an individual assessee under the Act.

3. A search and seizure was conducted in the case of the appellant on 16-09-2010, and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant for the Assessment Year 2011-12, as the date of search fell within the said Assessment Year.

4. The assessee filed its return of Income on 01-03-2010, declaring the total income of Rs.67,86,340/-.

5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee/assessee's authorized representative appeared from time to time and a detailed reply was also filed on 05-01-2013.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad, the then Assessing Officer, vide his order dt.30-03-2013, completed the assessment. The income returned was the income assessed. No separate additions were made.

7. Later, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad issued a show cause notice proposing to revise the assessment in terms of Section 163 of the Act.

8. The Revisional Authority, vide his show cause notice, proposed to make an addition of Rs.1,04,66,134/-, being the total value of gold and silver jewellery, found during the course of search and seizure proceedings, as unexplained investment in the hands of the Assessee. The Revisional Authority opined that the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence during the time of the original assessment and that he was not filing returns under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.

9. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a detailed reply on 12-01-2015. In its reply, the assessee submitted that returns under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 were filed in his individual capacity, and also in the name of T.Jagan Mohan Rao (HUF), T.Annapurna, T.Nanda kishore & T.Saritha (i.e. his HUF & family members) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Further, personal affidavits of his family members were also enclosed to the reply. Apart from that, detailed statements of the purchases made by his family members, both within and outside India, were furnished.

10. It is contended by the appellant that brushing aside the submissions of the assessee, the Revisional Authority completed the revision and passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on 10-03- 2015 setting aside the well considered order of the Assessing Officer. The Revisional Authority directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after "making detailed enquiries and investigation". He was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer ought to have made 'further enquiries', before accepting the statements made by the assessee at the time of assessment. The Revisional Authority did not consider the separate returns under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and the affidavits and other material filed by the family members of the assessee.

11. The Assessing Officer, vide his order dt.31-12-2015, completed the assessment once again, under Section 143(3) r/w 263 of the Act, in tune with the order of the Revisional Authority.

12. Questioning the order of the Revisional Authority dt.10-03-2015, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal by the assessee/appellant on 29-01-2016.

13. The assessee contends that he approached his counsel only after the receipt of the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer on 31-12-2015; that he was under a bona fide but erroneous view that an appeal to be filed challenging only the consequential order and not to the Revisional Order; and that only after he approached his counsel, it was realized that an appeal ought to have been filed challenging the Revision Authority's order dt.10-3-2015 also.

14. So the ITTA was filed with a delay of 154 days before the Tribunal on 29-01-2016, along with a petition to condone t