2022 (7) TMI 332 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment u/s 69 - appellant failed to explain the source of opening capital - HELD THAT - CIT(Appeals) has given part relief to the assessee on a purely ad-hoc basis, without controverting the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee in support of his claim that the opening balance is out of past savings. We are inclined to take the view that the assessee has been able to place on record sufficient evidence to support his case that the opening balance of ₹ 10,01,133/- is out of past savings of the assessee, and hence the addition made by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is hereby set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was time-barred by 215 days due to various reasons, including misplacement of the order by the peon and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, explaining the circumstances. The delay was not intentional, and the interest of justice led to the condonation of the delay. The Delay Condonation was not objected by the Ld. DR.

Addition of Unexplained Investment:
The Assessing Officer added an amount to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, treating the opening capital balance as unexplained income. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) retained a portion of the addition, stating that the appellant failed to explain the source of the opening capital to a certain extent. The assessee contended that the opening balance was from past savings accumulated over 10 to 12 years as a salaried employee. The Ld. CIT(A) provided minor relief but confirmed a balance amount as unexplained income. The assessee reiterated the same arguments before the ITAT, presenting evidence of past earnings and employment. The ITAT noted the genuineness of documents and the continuity of the assessee's salary income. Referring to a Delhi Tribunal case, the ITAT held that the addition of the opening capital could not be sustained. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final decision rendered by the ITAT.