Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 129 days, attributing it to lack of knowledge about the assessment and first appellate orders and unfamiliarity with emails. The substantive issue concerned an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay vague and unsatisfactory, thus rejecting the condonation of delay. Regarding the addition, the assessee failed to produce any evidence before any authority to prove the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the addition under Section 69A was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 129-day delay in filing the appeal. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization was justified.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Pavan Kumar Gadia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) PAN:AAKHP4026M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23/09/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.207-18.
2. There is a delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has explained the reasons for the delay in the petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned DR on condonation of delay. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit as under:
Thus, it is clear that a very vague explanation has been made by the assessee in the affidavit without mentioning the time and date as well as the occasion when the assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). The learned AR has also not brought any fact before us in support of the said explanation of the assessee. It is settled proposition of Page 3 of 6 law that the expression “sufficient cause” must be construed liberally in favour of the litigant so that the dispute could be decided as far as possible on merits and not on technicalities. However, at the same time, the litigant is not allowed to use the process of law when there no justifiable cause explained by the assessee for approaching the Court belatedly. The reasons explained by the assessee on the face of it are very vague and therefore, not acceptable being unsatisfactory reasons. Accordingly, we find that the assessee has not explained any justifiable reasons for the delay in filing the present appeal and Hence, we decline to condone the delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal.
The has raised the following grounds of appeal:
5. The Assessing Officer has made an addition on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period of Rs.2,50,000/-. The assessee has explained before the Assessing Officer that the deposits are out of his regular income from other sources and earlier savings. However, the assessee has not filed any record or details to support the claim of the regular income as well as earlier savings. Further, before the learned CIT (A), the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) and consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Even before us, the assessee has not produced any record in support of the claim of the source of the deposits in the Bank Account during the demonetization period. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned CIT (A), qua this issue.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.