Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1279 - AT - Income TaxIssues Involved: 1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Substantive addition of Rs. 16,50,000/- under Section 69A. 3. Addition of Rs. 1,943/- as interest income. 4. Protective addition of Rs. 18,51,736/- and Rs. 2,08,118/-. 5. Reopening of assessment under Section 147. 6. Framing of assessment under Section 144. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was delayed by 327 days. The assessee attributed the delay to his wife's severe illness, which required frequent hospital visits and impacted his mental condition, preventing timely action on the appellate order. The Tribunal found the reasons convincing, supported by medical documents and doctor's certificates, and thus condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to be heard on merit. 2. Substantive Addition of Rs. 16,50,000/- under Section 69A: The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee deposited Rs. 16,50,000/- in his savings account without filing a return of income, leading to the reopening of the assessment. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the source of the cash deposits, merely claiming it was held from previous years. The AO treated the amount as unexplained money under Section 69A and added it to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting the lack of credible evidence and applying the Human Probability test as outlined in CIT v. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal v. CIT. 3. Addition of Rs. 1,943/- as Interest Income: The AO noticed an undisclosed interest income of Rs. 1,943/- from the savings account, which the assessee had not offered for taxation due to non-filing of the return. This amount was added as "income from other sources" and upheld by the CIT(A). 4. Protective Addition of Rs. 18,51,736/- and Rs. 2,08,118/-: In a related appeal, the AO made a protective addition of Rs. 18,51,736/- and Rs. 2,08,118/- in the hands of the assessee's son. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without findings on merit. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to send a reminder to the AO for a remand report, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal remitted both the substantive and protective addition cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication together, ensuring all issues are decided in accordance with the law. 5. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, but the Tribunal did not provide specific observations on this issue, implying it was part of the overall remand for fresh adjudication. 6. Framing of Assessment under Section 144: The assessment was framed under Section 144 due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The Tribunal's decision to remit the case back includes reconsideration of this procedural aspect. Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted both appeals (substantive and protective additions) back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The assessee is directed to submit relevant documents during the appellate proceedings. Both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
|