2023 (3) TMI 853 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - appeals were filed late belatedly beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) - Mandation to file appeal fees - assessee is a Super Senior Citizen aged about 90 years confined to bed now, and he cannot speak or write-paralysed and dependent on servant AND was not having any money to deposit appeal fee as prescribed u/s 253(6)(c) - appellant claim that he approached the Registry of tribunal on or around 26th December, 2019 (within prescribed time) to file these four appeals with tribunal, but since the appeal fees as provided u/s 253(6)(c) was not pre-deposited by assessee with Government Treasury by the assessee, the appeals could not be filed at that time owing to refusal by registry to accept these four appeal - HELD THAT - If technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the Courts will lean towards substantial justice, unless malice is at writ large in filing the appeal belatedly. The litigant is not likely to gain anything in delay in filing the appeal, and the Courts will not shut the door of justice unless malice is at writ large. In the instant case, the assessee was a Super Senior Citizen of around 90 years of age, and he was not likely to gain by delay in filing these four appeals. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji Ors. 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, we admit these four appeals by condoning delay in filing of these four appeals beyond the time provided u/s 253(3). Now, we proceed to adjudicate these four appeals on merit in accordance with law. Additions u/s 68 - income from un-disclosed sources - Agriculture Income - exemption of income u/s 10(1) read with Section 2(1A) denied - onus to prove - HELD THAT - The assessee is claiming exemption of alleged agricultural income under the provisions of Section 2(1A) read with Section 10(1) of the 1961 Act, and the onus is entirely on the assessee to prove that the assessee earned agricultural income as defined u/s 2(1A) of the 1961 Act before any exemption can be granted u/s 10(1) of the 1961 Act. It is well settled that exemption provisions are to be strictly construed and the onus is strictly on the assessee to prove that his case falls within four corners of the exemption provision. The assessee having miserably failed to prove that he earned agricultural income allegedly claim to have been earned by him during the year, and hence claim of earning alleged agriculture income and consequent claim of exemption stand rejected. Thus, We do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned decision of ld. CIT(A), and we concur with the decision of ld. CIT(A) which we uphold. The assessee fails on this issue. Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits - assessee has claimed that the same was deposited two people with whom the assessee has claimed to be partner for construction of flats on the plot of land owned by them - HELD THAT - The assessee has himself admitted that during the year, no sale of flats purported to be constructed by him on the aforesaid plot of land, has taken place, nor there is any evidence on record that Mrs. Shashi Singh and/or Mrs. Anita Kesarwani gave any amount in cash to the assessee, and moreover, as per Ikrarnama, both Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani were not required to contribute any amount towards this venture, apart from contributing plot of land on which construction was to be carried out, of which both of them namely Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani were the owners. This claim is raised by the assessee of having received Rs. 20 lacs in cash which stood deposited in PNB, from Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani, for the first time before tribunal, and that too without filing any evidence on record to substantiate the aforesaid claim, and this claim is merely a balled claim without any evidence. Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this claim of the assessee. CIT(A) has rightly made the addition which we affirm, as the said cash deposits are income of the assessee from the undisclosed sources. The assessee fails on this issue too.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Claim of agricultural income as exempt.
3. Unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts.
4. Verification of deposits from sale of property.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeals were filed late beyond the statutory time limit under Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee sought condonation of delay citing reasons such as old age, ill health, and financial difficulties. The Tribunal observed that the delay was due to genuine reasons, including the assessee being a super senior citizen, bedridden, and dependent on children for financial support. The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

Claim of Agricultural Income:
The assessee claimed agricultural income as exempt under Section 10(1) read with Section 2(1A) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with adequate evidence. The assessee did not provide proof of basic and subsequent agricultural operations, such as tilling, sowing, harvesting, and sale of produce. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the claim of agricultural income as exempt, citing the lack of documentary evidence and the principles laid down in CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC).

Unexplained Cash Deposits:
The assessee had unexplained cash deposits in his bank accounts, which were added to his income under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations and evidence for the sources of these cash deposits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat these deposits as income from undisclosed sources, emphasizing the assessee's failure to discharge the initial onus of proving the nature and source of the income.

Verification of Deposits from Sale of Property:
For certain assessment years, the assessee claimed that deposits in his bank account were from the sale of property (House No. 846, University Road, Allahabad). The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify and reconcile these deposits with the sale deeds. The Tribunal noted that this decision had attained finality as no appeals were filed against it. The Tribunal directed the AO to ensure correct income is brought to tax, avoiding double additions.

Summary:
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to genuine reasons. The claims of agricultural income as exempt were rejected due to insufficient evidence. Unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts were upheld as income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and reconcile deposits claimed to be from the sale of property, ensuring correct income is taxed. Appeals for AY 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2009-10 were dismissed, while the appeal for AY 2008-09 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.