JITENDRA KUMAR BITPURE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal with delay of 11 days. Assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the reason for delay. On due consideration of the averments made in the affidavit, I am satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. I note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. I therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 11 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The grievance of the assessee revolves around the addition for unexplained investment u/sec 69 of the Act at Rs.8,80000/-.

The legal issued raised in Ground No. 1 challenging the validity of notice u/sec 148 of the Act is dismissed as ‘not pressed’.

So far as the merits of the case, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and return of income for the A.Y.013-14 filed on 21.10.2013 declaring income of Rs.1,99,880. Based on the information about the alleged investment of Rs.8,80,000 in M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management, Nagpur, re-assessment proceedings were carried out after serving notice un/sec 148 of the Act. Assessee is drawing income from salary and during the course of proceedings explanation was also given about the source of the investment which mainly included salary, loan from father, household savings, LIC maturity etc. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied and made addition u/s. 69 of the Act for unexplained income at Rs.8,80,000/-.

Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the investments made by the assessee during the year in M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management, Nagpur is only Rs.5,25,000/- and not Rs.8,80,000/- as alleged by the Revenue authorities. It is stated that Rs.1.50 lakh was invested during F.Y. 2011-12 and in the investment made at Rs.5,25,000/- for the instant year under appeal the same included Accrued interest on Rs.1.50 lakh at Rs.30,000/-. It therefore shows that the assessee is required to explain the source of investment of only Rs.4,95,000/- made with M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management, Nagpur during the year.

Now I observe that the assessee is claiming the source from income from salary, has also taken gold loan of Rs.1,19,600/-, loan from his father at Rs.1,80,000/- hand loan by cheque at Rs.50,000/- and Insurance Policy maturity at Rs.29,958/-. Now considering the fact that the assessee is drawing salary regularly from past many years availability of accumulated savings of Rs.1,50,000/- cannot be disputed. Further, the assessee has made payment through banking channel at Rs.3,25,000/- the source of which is mainly from salary income (duly shown in income tax return) as well as loan from father and gold loan. Confirmation letter from father dated 18.02.2020 has been filed.

Considering the withdrawals made from the bank account, the amount received from LIC maturity, salary income, accumulated savings and loan from father, I hold that firstly the alleged unexplained investment is not Rs.8,80,000/- but the actual figure of investment for the year is Rs.5,25,000/- and out of this figure Rs.30,000/- is accrued interest on the investment made in the preceding year. Further, I hold that the source of funds to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- stands explained and addition deserves to be deleted. Thus, addition sustained is only Rs.45,000/- as against Rs.8,80,000/- confirmed by ld.CIT(A). Assessee gets relief of Rs.8,35,000/-. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits are partly allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.