Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 288 days. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 9,13,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the CIT(A) after restricting it from the initial addition of Rs. 16,00,000/-. The assessee disputed the service of the notice under Section 148 and provided explanations for the cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for decision on merits. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the AO to verify the documents furnished by the assessee. If the assessee substantiates their contentions with documentary evidence, the AO shall delete the remaining additions.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable, and whether the additions made under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits are justified based on the assessee's explanations and substantiation.
Sections Cited
69A, 144, 147, 148, 2(41), 56(2)(vi)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
(A.Y. 2012-13) Sharad Panwar, B-527, MIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110093 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: BCRPP-9210-P बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), R. No. 317, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee by : None Department by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 19/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28.06.2024, for Assessment Year 2012-13 2. The appeal is time barred by 288 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, (A.Y. 2012-13) delay of 288 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
The primary issue in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.9,13,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) upheld by the CIT(A). A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the same has been passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.03.2019. However, the assessee has disputed that the said notice was never served on him. The Assessing Officer (AO) in ex-parte proceedings completed the assessment making addition of Rs.16,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Act, on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee with HDFC Bank Ltd. In First Appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed reopening of assessment as well as addition on merits. The CIT(A) vide impugned order granted part relief to the assessee on merits and restricted the addition u/s.69A of the Act to Rs.9,13,000/-. The contention of the assessee as per statement of facts/grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal is, that the assessee has duly discharged his primary onus by producing bank statements and explaining the source of cash deposits with respect to remaining amount of Rs.9,13,000/-. The explanation furnished by the assessee for deposit of cash amounting to Rs.9,13,000/- is as under:- “Rs. 2,00,000 was received as a gift from relatives, falling under the definition of "relative" u/s 2(41) and hence exempt u/s 56(2)(vi); Rs. 3,00,000 was received as financial assistance from relatives and returned in cash after it remained unutilized; Rs. 3,00,000 was redeposit of the same funds withdrawn earlier for educational donation but subsequently returned; Rs. 1,13,000 was nominal tuition income, below the basic exemption limit.”
(A.Y. 2012-13) 4. Considering entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO to verify the documents furnished by the assessee in support of his submissions. In case the assessee is able to substantiate his contentions with documentary evidences, the AO shall delete the remaining additions. The AO shall grant sufficient opportunity of making submissions to the assessee before passing the order, in accordance with law.