Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against CIT(A) additions for AY 2011-12 regarding unexplained time deposits of Rs. 10 lacs and bank interest of Rs. 20,525. A delay in filing the appeal was also noted. The assessee claimed the deposit source was from an opening bank balance from agricultural land sale, and interest was already disclosed under Section 148.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay. It deleted the Rs. 10 lacs addition, finding the source (opening bank balance from agricultural land sale) adequately explained. The Rs. 20,525 bank interest addition was also deleted to prevent double taxation, as it had already been disclosed under Section 148.
Key Issues
Whether delay in filing appeal should be condoned; Whether the source of time deposits was sufficiently explained; Whether bank interest income already disclosed can be re-added, leading to double taxation.
Sections Cited
148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ /Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kuldeep Singh बनाम The ITO H.No. 181, Vill: Dadumajra Ward-6(1) Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWZPS9132C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/08/2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश/Order
PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 12/05/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.
At the outset, it is noted that there is delay in filing the present appeal as pointed out by the Registry. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of delay and has also filed an Affidavit. It was further submitted that the Affidavit of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee engaged in filing the present appeal has also been filed. It was submitted that the impugned order was passed electronically by the Ld. CIT(A) on 12/05/2023 and initially, the said order did not come to the notice of the assessee as it was not served physically and assessee not been tech-savvy didn’t have access to the computer system to access the order so passed electronically. Subsequently, in the month of September 2023, the assessee engaged the Counsel to prepare appeal, and for the purpose the necessary appeal documentation were prepared which was signed and fees for filing the appeal were also deposited on 05/10/2023. However, due to inadvertent mistake committed by one of the colleague of the Counsel, the appeal could not filed with the Tribunal. It was submitted that the said lapse came to light only during the routine review of pending matter in the Counsel’s office and thereafter steps were immediately taken to file the appeal. It was submitted that as far as the assessee is concerned the assessee has acted diligently at all times despite his limitations to the technology and given the inadvertent error on the part of the Counsel engaged to file the present appeal, the delay has happened which may be condoned. It was submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor due to any fault on the part of the assessee but has occurred due to inadvertent lapse on the part of Counsel’s office and therefore considering the same, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay may be condone and the appeal be admitted for necessary adjudication.
The Ld. DR is heard who has not specifically rebutted the contents of the Affidavit placed on the record by the assessee as well as by the assessee’s Counsel engaged for the purpose of filing the present appeal. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal as the assessee cannot penalized for fault on part of the Counsel. Further, the Courts have held that where substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should prevail. The delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Coming to the merits of the case, the limited issue involved in the present case relates to the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards time deposits placed by the assessee which remain unexplained as per the AO and an addition of Rs. 20,525/- towards bank interest.
In this regard, the Ld. AR taken us through the assessee’s statement of account maintained with PNB wherein there is an opening balance of Rs. 30,78,323/- as on 01/04/2010. It was submitted that an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- was thereafter transfer from PNB account to another account opened by the assessee with HDFC Bank on 06/04/2010 and out of the said deposit, the assessee has placed a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 15/04/2010. It was accordingly submitted that the source of the Fixed Deposit was out of the opening bank balance at the beginning of the financial year relevant to the impugned assessment year and no addition can be made in the impugned assessment year and necessary relief be provided to the assessee.
It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has acknowledged this fact and has gone a step further in terms of asking the assessee to explain the source of the opening bank balance which is clearly beyond the purview of assessment as far as the impugned assessment year is concerned. It was submitted that notwithstanding the same, the assessee has explained that the opening bank balance is out of the sale proceeds of the agriculture land sold during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 and inspite of that, the addition so made by the AO has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).
Regarding the addition towards the bank interest, it was submitted that the assessee in response to notice under section 148 has duly disclosed the sum of Rs. 38,580/- in respect of interest income received from the bank and therefore, the addition of Rs. 20,525/- towards the bank interest also result in double addition which deserves to be deleted.
It was accordingly, submitted that the necessary relief be provided to the assessee by deleting the addition so made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. DR is heard, who has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. From the perusal of the bank statements maintained with PNB and HDFC Bank, it is evidently clear that the source of deposit placed by way of Fixed Deposit of Rs 10 lacs by the assessee during the year under consideration were out of the opening bank balance as on 01/04/2010. Therefore as far as the source of such deposits is concerned, the same has been duly explained and demonstrated by way of balance standing to the credit of the assessee in his bank account. All these bank statements are on record before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). I therefore do not find any merit in the addition so made and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence the same is hereby deleted.