Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.07.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013- 14.
2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 489 days in filing of instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed as under: “1. The deponent is citizen of India and doing business at Umrer, District-Nagpur.
The deponent/assessee has received order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 1/07/2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi on 11/07/2023.
2 Mr. Pradip Gangadharrao Bhude
3. The order of CIT(A) NFAC was received by the earlier counsel of the deponent/assessee Adv. Mukesh Agarwal but the same was not communicated to the deponent/assessee. The deponent/assessee was under bonafied impression that the counsel has filed 2nd appeal against the order passed by CIT(A) NFAC before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur within in time.
4. The deponent/assessee visited to office of the earlier counsel and asked about appeal against the order of CIT(A) NFAC and found that the earlier counsel has not filed appeal against the order of CIT(A) NFAC before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
The deponent/assessee approached new counsel the and as per advice of the new counsel deponent/assessee is filing this appeal on 31/01/2025 alongwith delay of 510 days. There is fault on the part of the deponent/assessee and reason cause believe to file the appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT.
5. However, due to above reason the assessee is being filed appeal on 31/01/2025 therefore delay of 510 days, delay be kindly condoned in the interest of justice.”
The reasons stated by the Assessee are duly mentioned in the condonation of application and supported by duly sworn affidavit. Thus, considering the same as genuine, bonafide and unintentional, though the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim, this Court is inclined to condone the delay involved. Thus, the delay is condoned.
4. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in the instant case, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by recording reasons for reopening and issuing the notice dated 23.03.2020 u/s 148 of the Act mainly on the reason that the Assessee has made the investment of Rs.20,32,500/- with M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management, Nagpur during the F.Y. 2012-13. Consequently, in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the Assessee has claimed and requested to treat his original return filed, as return filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, various statutory notices were issued to the 3 Mr. Pradip Gangadharrao Bhude Assessee to explain the deposit of amount of Rs.20,32,500/- during the financial year under consideration. Though, the Assessee in response, uploaded his submission/representation and details electronically, however, the Assessing Officer (AO) by observing “That the Assessee failed to explain the source of investment by documentary evidence and it is the bounden duty of the Assessee to prove beyond doubt the genuineness of the transaction and the Assessee cannot be allowed to be run away from his burden to prove the genuineness of transactions”, ultimately made the addition of Rs.20,32,500/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.
The Assessee though, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of sending various notices, eventually made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee dismissing the same in limine but not on merit.
The Assessee by filing appeal before this Court has claimed that the Assessee during the assessment year under consideration has not deposited any such amount of Rs.20,32,500/- and in fact has deposited only Rs.4,00,000/- during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2014-15 as mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, para no.9, however, without giving a clear-cut finding and without bringing any material on record and establishing any corroboration, made the addition, which is unsustainable.
This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the AO has mentioned in para no.8 of its order qua facts that the Assessee has stated that he has invested Rs.4,00,000/- with M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management, Nagpur in A.Y. 2014-15 out of his earned income. The Assessee before the AO also submitted the copy of 4 Mr. Pradip Gangadharrao Bhude bank passbook, however, the AO without considering the same and by holding that the Assessee had invested Rs.20,32,500/-, eventually made the addition of the aforesaid amount, which is not based on any verification and/or documents and/or corroboration. Thus, the addition made by the AO as affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner is unsustainable sans substantive evidence/material. Thus, the addition under consideration is deleted by allowing the appeal of the Assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
Order is pronounced 24.09.2025 as per rule 34(5) of the Income Tax {Appellate Tribunal} Rule 1963.