9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee are bona fide or merely a device to take benefit or an attempt to take undue advantage of filing the appeal belatedly. We find that it does not emerge from the facts and circumstances of the case that by filing the appeal belatedly the assessee has made an attempt to take undue advantage or benefit. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal. Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits in Bank account - peak credit - HELD THAT:- AO on the basis of AIR information that the assessee has deposited cash in the Bank account during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Thus addition has been made by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. There is a delay of 169 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an Affidavit. 3. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental Representative and considered the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is stated that the assessee has tried his hand in the business but it was not successful therefore the business was closed down. The assessment in this case was passed exparte against which the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which was also dismissed exparte. Thus it is pleaded that the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the case that by filing the appeal belatedly the assessee has made an attempt to take undue advantage or benefit. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 8. The only issue arises for our consideration and adjudication is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on account of cash deposits in Bank. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that as per AIR communication, deposits amounting to ₹ 58,80,250 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withdrawal from the Bank, then addition cannot be more than the peak credit in the Bank account. Thus the learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the withdrawal from the Bank should be considered as a source of subsequent deposit. 11. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the assessee has failed to explain the source of deposit despite the sufficient opportunities were granted by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (Appeals). Further when the deposits in the Bank account were not explained by the assessee then the same is liable to be added under Section 69 of the Act if not 68 of the Act. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 12. We have considered the rival submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
