2013 (4) TMI 886 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Non-consideration of the Written Statement by the Appellant's Representative.
3. Addition of Rs. 8,94,550 as unexplained capital introduction u/s 68.
4. Addition of Rs. 9,80,015 as unsecured loans u/s 68.
5. Non-disposal of ground pertaining to addition of Rs. 34,249 out of labor charges.
6. Non-disposal of ground pertaining to addition of Rs. 3,858 out of telephone charges.

Summary:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed the appeal due to a four-month delay in filing. The CIT(A) found the explanation for the delay, which involved the representative's assistant allegedly misplacing the papers, to be vague and unsupported by evidence. The ITAT upheld this decision, emphasizing that the explanation did not constitute "sufficient cause" and highlighted the importance of acting with reasonable diligence. The ITAT also noted the absence of a valid affidavit supporting the explanation, citing legal precedents that stress the need for proper verification in affidavits.

2. Non-consideration of Written Statement:
The ITAT did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary focus was on the condonation of delay and the merits of the additions made by the AO.

3. Addition of Rs. 8,94,550 as Unexplained Capital Introduction u/s 68:
The AO added Rs. 8,94,550 to the assessee's income as unexplained capital introduction u/s 68 due to the assessee's failure to provide details and sources of the capital despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, and the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the AO's decision, noting the assessee's non-compliance and lack of explanation.

4. Addition of Rs. 9,80,015 as Unsecured Loans u/s 68:
The AO added Rs. 9,80,015 as unsecured loans u/s 68, citing the assessee's failure to provide details, confirmations, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, and the ITAT agreed, emphasizing the assessee's non-compliance and the absence of necessary documentation to substantiate the loans.

5. Non-disposal of Ground Pertaining to Addition of Rs. 34,249 out of Labor Charges:
The ITAT did not specifically address this issue, as the primary focus was on the condonation of delay and the merits of the major additions made by the AO.

6. Non-disposal of Ground Pertaining to Addition of Rs. 3,858 out of Telephone Charges:
Similar to the issue regarding labor charges, the ITAT did not specifically address this issue due to the focus on the condonation of delay and the major additions.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay in filing the appeal and confirming the additions made by the AO due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary explanations and documentation. The ITAT emphasized the importance of acting with diligence and the requirement for proper verification in affidavits.