9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive as observed in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ 1971 (9) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT ] It is always open to an assesee to show that it is incorrect. From the material on record, it is patently clear that the acquisition of assets in respect of which the addition was made were acquired prior to the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, provisions of section 69 cannot be invoked for the year under consideration. The question of offering any explanation in support of the source for the acquisition of the said assets does not arise for the year under consideration as said investment was not made during the previous year rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g aggrieved, an appeal was before the CIT(A) contesting that the addition on account of unexplained source for the investment is not required to be made, as the investments were not made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. It is further contended that no addition can be made merely based on the admission, if the same is patently not taxable for the year under consideration. However, the ld. CIT(A) had upheld the addition, as according to him, the appellant had failed to explain the source of the investment. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above settled principles governing the condonation of delay, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 8. As regards the merits of the addition, on mere perusal of contents of para 7 of the CIT(A) order as well as para 12 of the assessment order, it would be evident that the relevant assets were not acquired during the previous year relevant to the year under consideration. This is an undisputed fact. The AO made the addition merely based on the fact that the assessee made disclosure of his income during the course of survey operations. Even the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by holding that the appellant had failed to explain the source of investment. In my considered opinion both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
