Facts
The assessee, a scrap dealer, deposited SBN notes and introduced capital during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the income for unexplained sources. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] provided partial relief.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was not willful or deliberate and condoned it. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on a correct appreciation of facts and sustained the relief granted by the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly granted partial relief regarding demonetized deposits and capital introduction, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060558274(1) dated 06.02.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017- 18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 06.02.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
It has been noted that there is a delay of 73 days in the case, in 2.0 filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the managing partner of the assesse firm is residing overseas in UAE for the purposes of his employment and hence timely compliance could not be made to appellate responsibilities. It was submitted that soon upon his visit to India steps were taken and appeal was filed albeit with a delay of 73 days. It was submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate All these circumstances contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse, even though the assesse was not present during hearing, and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 Before proceeding further, we deem it necessary to examine the factual matrix of this case. The assesse is a scrap dealer. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Ld. AO noted that the assesse had deposited SBN notes amounting to Rs.57,98,500/- in his bank accounts with Bank of India during the demonetization period. It was also noted that an amount of Rs.14 lakhs was introduced as capital in the partnership firm. After examining the capital account of the partner and the cash deposits in the bank account the Ld. AO queried the assesse to justify sources thereof. On page-2 of his order, the Ld. AO has clearly recorded that the assesse did not offer any explanation. Consequently the AO proceeded to make the addition of Rs.57,98,500/- and of Rs.14 lakhs. In appeal, the Ld. First Appellate Authority gave part relief to the assesse. As regards, the addition of Rs.57,98,500/- he held that the Ld. AO has not given the assesse benefit of Rs. 14 lakhs qua declaration made in the Pradhan Manthri Gareeb Kalyan Yojana and hence confirmed the addition of Rs.43,98,500/-. As regards the addition of capital introduced the Ld. First Appellate Authority gave relief of Rs.6 lakhs again qua declaration made in the Pradhan Manthri Gareeb Kalyan Yojana reported by the assesse. 4.0 We have examined the case in the light of material available on records. The Ld. DR would like us to believe that the order of the Ld. AO is based upon correct understanding of the facts. It is an undisputed fact of the case that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assesse to the extent the assesse had provided documentary support. During the course of the present proceedings, the assesse has not adduced any evidences in support of grounds of appeal raised by it.