DHARMENDRA KUMAR,SAMBHAL vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), CHANDAUSI
I.T.A.No.3698/Del/2023
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3698/Del/2023
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2017-18
Dharmendra Kumar
Rajpur, Rajpura Post Sambhal,
Uttar Pradesh.
बनाम
Vs.
ITO,
Ward-2(5),
Chandausi, Uttar Pradesh.
PAN No.CFUPK0709P
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
िनधारतीक ओरसे /Assessee by Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv.
राजवक ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Sanjay Sharma, Sr. DR
सुनवाईक तारीख/ Date of hearing:
04.12.2024
उोषणाक तारीख/Pronouncement on 03.01.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 14.07.2023 for the AY 2017-18
arising out of the order passed u/s 144 of the Act.
2. This appeal is filed with the delay of 93 days and the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. In the petition filed the assessee explained that order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) was received by the assessee on 18.07.2023 and the appeal was required to be filed before the Tribunal by 17.09.2023. However, the appeal
I.T.A.No.3698/Del/2023
was filed on 18.12.2023 with a delay of 93 days. It was explained that the delay is due to the assessee was diagnosed with severe liver complications which ultimately led to his death on 04.03.2024. It was explained with medical records that due to the prolong illness of the assessee the appeal could not be filed in time. The delay was neither intentional nor wanton but for the reasons beyond his control. The death certificate was also furnished by the assessee as approved that the assessee was died on 04.03.2024. 3. Considering the reasons for filing the appeal with a delay of 93
days and the medical records, I am of the view that the assessee had reasonable cause in filing the appeal with delay, therefore, the delay of 93 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted. As the assessee died the legal heir of the assessee furnished revised Form
36 bringing on record Madhubala as legal heir of Dharmendra
Kumar.
4. The assessee in his appeal raised the following grounds: -
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in –
Confirming the following additions made by the Assessing Officer –
a) Rs.34,155/- on account of difference in opening and closing balances;
I.T.A.No.3698/Del/2023
b) Rs.12,90,291/- on account of repayment of unsecured loans treating the same as out of books;
The above action being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.”
Heard rival submissions. In so far as ground no.1 is concerned, it appears that the assessee did not press this ground before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) and the same is dismissed by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) observing that the assessee did not press this ground of appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the grounds of appeal. It is observed that this ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals) and was not pressed. Since the assessee did not press this ground before the Ld.CIT(Appeals). It appears that the assessee had no grievance on this issue. This ground raised before the Tribunal is also dismissed. 6. Coming to ground no.2 which is the addition made u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained cash credit it is observed from the assessment order that the assessee in his balance sheet for the immediately preceding year has shown unsecured loan at Rs.12,90,291/- and during the current assessment year the said loan was squared off. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the mode of payment and the name of the borrower/lender.
I.T.A.No.3698/Del/2023
However, since the assessee did not reply Assessing Officer has treated the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition on the ground that the source of repayment is not disclosed by the assessee.
7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has wiped off the unsecured loans during the current year and the reason for wiping off and payment could not be find as the assessee
Dharmendra Kumar has died.
8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the transaction of unsecured loan has not happened during the current assessment year but was the opening balance for the assessment year under consideration. Ld. Counsel further submits that the repayment of loan the squaring of loan cannot be considered as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act for the reason that the assessee has recorded the transaction in the books of account.
9. Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
10. Heard rival submissions. I find considerable force in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel that the provisions of section 69A of the Act are not applicable to the squaring off the loan which was I.T.A.No.3698/Del/2023
obtained by the assessee and recorded in the books of account in the immediately preceding assessment year. The unsecured loan transaction has been recorded in the books of account and the squaring off the loan was also recorded in the books of account and therefore the provision of section 69 of the Act have no application since it is not income of the assessee. Ground no.2 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/01/2025 (C.N. PRASAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 03.01.2025
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.
Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT
(DR)/Guard file of ITAT.
By order