RAMAKRISHNAN GURUSAMY ,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(8), SALEM

आदेश /O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

2. There is a delay of 233 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The reasons stated for belated filing of this appeal is there was no real time alert and assessee nor his authorized representative has been served with hearing notices vide e-mail or to their mobile. It is stated that the receipt of the appellate order was seen by the assessee in the Income-tax portal only in the month of February, 2025. It is further stated that the belated filing of the appeal is neither willful nor wanton. It is stated that assessee’s bonafide is proved by the fact that the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 was served on the assessee on 31.12.2019 and an appeal has been filed before the First Appellate Authority within the due date prescribed. Therefore, it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned for substantial justice and equity. After considering the reasons stated in the condonation application/affidavit of the assessee, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.

3. The grounds raised

by the assessee read as follows: Grounds of Appeal

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order of first appellate authority dated 29.04,.2024 in dismissing the appeal of the appellant is bad in law and is not legally justified.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.70,67,200/- which represents the investment made in M/s Madhuraj Associates during the financial year 2012-13. The assessee has given a party wise detailed break up of the above amount and also given valid proofs like Voters Id, Ration card etc along with full addresses of the above said 10 persons. This act eliminates the onus cast upon the assessee and it is the duty of the AO to verify the creditworthiness of the above mentioned persons. It could be seen that all the amounts stated above to an extent of Rs.48,00,000/- are via banking channel like cheque, thus the AO is not justified in considering the above said amounts as unexplained money and assessing the same by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.7,10,552/- brought to assessment represents gold loan raised by the assessee from axis bank and another sum of Rs. 15.72,000/- brought to assessment represents own funds of the assessee and in view of this both the above additions are not justified.

6. There is a delay in filing the appeal for which delay condonation petition will be filed at the time of appeal hearing.

Madhuraj Associates (Firm). The firm purchased a property (land and building) which was auctioned by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for a sum of Rs.19,11,99,692/- on 07.06.2012. The share of the assessee in purchase of the above said property by the firm was Rs.78,87,200/-. As the assessee had not filed the original return of income for the assessment year 2013-14, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2019. In response to the notice issue u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 16.10.2019 for assessment year 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.2,12,379/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was directed to explain the source of Rs.78,87,200/- for his share/contribution for the purchase of property by the firm namely M/s. Madhuraj Associates. The assessee submitted Rs.8,20,000/- is the opening balance in the firm and balance Rs.70,67,200/- was invested by taking loan from lenders and assessee’s own funds. As the assessee was not able to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loan, the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.70,67,200/-.

7. Aggrieved by the FAA’s order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee has obtained the relevant details such as identity of the creditors, the capacity of the creditor to advance money and the genuineness of the transaction. Hence, it was prayed as a last opportunity the case may be restored to the files of the AO so that the necessary evidences/confirmation details of the lenders could be placed on record.

9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. A sum of Rs.70,67,200/- has been added as unexplained investment by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act. The break-up of the above amount finds a place at page 2 of the assessment order. It is stated that all the borrowings shown in the above break-up are through banking channels. The assessee had submitted details of loan, name of the lenders, bank statement and cheque leaf before the FAA. The FAA had forwarded the additional evidences filed, to the AO for a remand report. The AO submitted his remand report and CIT(A) directed the assessee to file rejoinder to the same. Inspite of several opportunities, the assessee was seeking time to file his response to the remand report submitted by AO. Hence, the FAA dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, as a last opportunity, we restore the matter to the files of the First Appellate Authority. The assessee is directed to file rejoinder to the remand report and shall furnish necessary evidences in support of the source for a sum of Rs.70,67,200/-. The assessee shall co-operate with the Revenue for an expeditious disposal of the appeal. It is ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 6th June, 2025 at Chennai.