ARMAN MAROOF KHAN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2007-08 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-33/IT/1320/09-10 dated 13/01/2011 qua confirmation of certain additions. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-22(2)(1) u/s 143(3) of the Income Arman Maroof Khan Assessment Year-2007-08 Tax Act, 1961 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.26.99 Lacs as against retuned income of Rs.2.21 Lacs filed by the assessee on 11/01/2008. The assessee being resident individual was engaged as Air Conditioning Repair Contractor & transport commission agent under proprietorship concern namely Supreme Cooling Services. 2.1 The registry has noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 371 days. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Prateek Jain has pleaded for condonation of the same on the strength of condonation petition dated 26/03/2012 as supported by assessee’s affidavit dated 24/03/2012. The delay has been attributed to negligence of the representing counsel of the assessee namely Shri Tarun Tripathi in filing the appeal in time. In support, a letter from the representing counsel has also been placed on record wherein the counsel has attributed the delay to bad health conditions being faced by him. The condonation has been vehemently opposed by Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav by pleading that each days delay was required to be explained and there was no sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee in the condonation petition. 2.2 After hearing rival contentions, we find that the explanation furnished by Ld. AR before us , in this regard, is not very plausible explanation and do not convince us to condone the huge delay. However, keeping in view the fact that the representing counsel was facing adverse medical conditions and the assessee was an individual engaged as small contractor and Arman Maroof Khan Assessment Year-2007-08 keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we condone the same and proceed to dispose-off the appeal on merits. 3.1 During assessment proceedings, pursuant to certain Annual Information Return [AIR], it was noted that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.11.25 Lacs in an account held with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chembur Branch. The said account was not reflected in the financial statements submitted by the assessee. The statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 131, which is extracted on pages 6 to 9 of the quantum assessment order, where the aforesaid fact was admitted by the assessee. The source of the cash deposit was attributed to sales proceeds of the house stated to be sold by the assessee during impugned AY. Upon perusal of the unregistered sale agreement, it was found that the house was sold for Rs.8.67 Lacs. However, no document to support the purchase price could be filed by the assessee, which resulted into an addition of Rs.8.67 Lacs as Short Term Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee. The balance cash deposit of Rs.2.58 Lacs was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 3.2 The assessee, in the similar manner, could not substantiate the cash deposit of Rs.10.56 Lacs & Rs.66.98 Lacs in two another bank accounts held with ICICI Bank. The same resulted into additions of Rs.6.06 Lacs & Rs.7.40 Lacs respectively, being peak of the cash deposited in these accounts. Finally, the income was assessed at Rs.26.99 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.2.21 Lacs.