GURDEEP SINGH,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1, JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 590 (five hundred ninety) days. He has filed an explanation along with an affidavit where it has been stated that the earlier income tax matters were handled by Sh. Kapil Aggarwal and the entire appeal folder along with the requisite documents were in his possession. But due to unfortunate demise of the late Mr. Aggarwal, the assessee was totally unaware of existence of the appellate order passed u/s 250 of the Act on 14.06.2023. Thereafter, the assessee appointed a new counsel with the help of whom this particular appeal is being filed with a delay of 590 (five hundred ninety) days. 3. The ld. DR objected to the same, considering the enormous delay of 590 days, he submitted that proper and sufficient cause has not been shown by the assessee. 4. We have considered the application for condonation and the reasons put-forth therein, and we are not fully convinced with the reasons put-forth and we are of the opinion that the intentional neglect is there on the part of the assessee. However, considering the unfortunate demise of the chartered accountant, Sh. Kapil Aggarwal and also in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. However, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where cost should be imposed and we hereby imposed a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the ‘Prime Minister’s

Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows:

There are six grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 and the main grievance is the addition of Rs. 4,84,563/- on account of 8% estimated profits arising out of difference in gross receipt and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on account of cash credit u/s 68. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has made an advance of Rs.6.07 crores to ‘DGM Geology and Mining Department’, J & K Government as royalty collection fees for the purpose of collecting royalty from sale of sand, bajri and allied materials, from the river beds. The advance as per the assessee has been made by obtaining loans from various persons whose PAN number, name and details has been furnished. Upon verification in course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the genuineness and the creditworthiness of one of the loan creditors “Lagbir Singh S/o Jagat Singh”, who has advanced an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- could not be substantiated, leading to its addition. 9. Apart from the above, the AO has also added back an amount calculated @ 8% of difference in gross receipt disclosed and actual receipts which amounted to Rs.4,84,563/-. 10. The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority in absence of any representation on at least three separate dates of hearing as evident from para 1.5.3 of the appellate order without any adjudication on merits.

Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in Form No. 36. However, before this Tribunal, the ld. AR has not submitted any paper book and has simply prayed for deletion of the said addition and has not filed any documents before us to establish the creditworthiness of the disputed loan creditor. 12. As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the ld. first appellate authority and we direct the assessee to file necessary documentary evidences to establish the creditworthiness of the loan creditors and to co-operate in appellate proceedings and to prove his case forthwith. 13. Since, the matter is remanded back to the ld. first appellate authority all legal issues are also kept open. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.