PRASHANT PRABHAKAR GADKARI,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2), NASHIK

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 is directed against the CIT(A)-1, Nashik’s order dated 01/01/2019 passed in case No. NSK/CIT(A)- 1/405/2016-17 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act.

It emerges at the outset that assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 160 days delay in filing stated to be attributable to various medical complications between December 2018 to August 2019 involving alleged expenditure of Rs. 40,00,000/- (approximate). The assessee has further filed on record various medical admission and investigation slips as well. All this material has gone un- rebutted from the Revenue side. I therefore quote Collector Land Acquisition, v/s Mst. Katiji & Ors. [167 ITR 471] that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all technical aspects in case the assessee concerned reasonably explains reasons of the delay in issue. I thus hold that the impugned delay 160 days in filing is neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of reasons beyond the assessee’s control. The same stands condoned.

Next comes the sole substantive issue on merits regarding correctness of sec. 68 unexplained cash deposit addition of Rs.1157000/- made in both the lower proceedings. Their does not appear to be much dispute regarding the tribunals first round directions in to the Assessing officer to afford “one” more opportunity to the assessee in order to explain source thereof alongwith capacity of the partis concerned. And also that the assessee could not do the needful to this effect. I therefore find no reason to interfere to the impugned addition as it would tantamount to disturb the tribunal’s earlier directions which have attained finally. The impugned addition stands upheld therefore.

These assessee’s appeal is dismissed.