SURAKUMAR SANKU,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Delay of 52 days is condoned considering the assessee’s condonation petitions, supported by affidavit(s) explaining the delay(s) as well as going by the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settling the issue long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.

Learned Departmental Representative invited our attention to assessee’s identical pleadings in all these cases, wherein both the lower authorities have made four additions of income from new connections, subscription, sec.69A and unexplained bank deposits; involving varying sums. We note in this peculiar circumstances that the first and foremost substantive ground made in assessee’s case is that unexplained money deposits to tune of Rs.2,22,500, Rs.1,11,582, Rs.6,72,009 and Rs.9,10,000, respectively, wherein it emerges that there was not even a satisfactory explanation much less that supported by cogent evidence filed before the lower authorities. That being the case, we see no merit in assessee’s instant first and foremost substantive

So far as all the remaining additions are concerned, the Revenue could hardly dispute that going by telescoping method, nothing survives as the first and foremost ground of unexplained cash deposits covers all the remaining additions which stand deleted in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law in very terms.

These assessee’s four appeals 198, 199 and 200/Coch/2024 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of the common order be placed in the respective case files.