SYED ABDUL CADER,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060039730(1) dated 23.01.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017- 18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 23.01.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 114 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that it did not receive the appellate order of the Ld.CIT(A) which was electronically transmitted, as a result of which he was not aware of it. Page - 1 - of 4 :- 2 -:

Subsequently in interaction with his Chattered Accountant in June-2024 it learnt about the passage of the order and proceeded to file this appeal. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non- compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 The only issue raised by the assessee through its grounds of appeal are regarding an addition of Rs.8,54,000/- made by the Ld. AO and which has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the Ld. AO has passed order u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2019 in its case making the impugned additions. The assessee carrying on the business of foot wear trading, property rentals, air ticketing etc had submitted that the cash deposits of Rs. 8,54,373/- made by it during the demonetization period have direct connection with its past withdrawals and income from air ticketing etc. According to the Ld.AO the assessee failed to produce his books of accounts, bills and vouchers before the Ld. AO to justify the source of cash deposits.

Page - 2 - of 4 :- 3 -:

4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire cash deposits has been recorded in its books of accounts and are sourced through past withdrawals or air ticketing services and hence they are all genuine. The Ld. DR would like to rely upon the order of the Ld.AO. From page 10 of the Ld.CIT(A)’s order, we have noted that of the total addition of Rs.13,98,500/-, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition only to the extent of Rs.8,54,373/- and deleted the balance of Rs. 5,47,127/-. The amount confirmed of Rs.4 lakhs claimed to have been withdrawn in July-2016 and Rs.2,52,873/- being ticket booking advance amount. We have noted that the impugned confirmations by the Ld.CIT(A) is merely based upon his theory of human probability and therefore cannot be accepted. The assessee is admittedly doing the business of air ticketing and the same has not been doubted by the Revenue. The hypothesis of non-linkage of withdrawal of Rs. 4 lakhs with deposits in demonetization period also appears to be incorrect given the fact that there is only a short time frame of about three months. Consequently, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of confirming the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 2,52,873/- and direct the Ld.AO to delete the additions. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.