Appeal admitted despite filing delay; retailer's undisclosed bank account leads to income reassessment.

The Tribunal admitted the appeal despite a one-day delay in filing, considering the appellant's reasonable explanation. The appellant, a pharmaceutical retailer, failed to disclose a bank account with substantial credits, leading the Revenue to treat the entire amount as unexplained income due to insufficient evidence. The burden of proof rested on the appellant to explain the deposits. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's responsibility to prove the nature and source of credits, recommending a detailed examination of undisclosed transactions and expenses. The Assessing Officer was directed to reassess the income based on the undisclosed bank account and credits.

---

---

Issues:
- Delay in filing the appeal
- Non-disclosure of bank account and income
- Burden of proof on the assessee
- Verification of undisclosed transactions and expenses
- Treatment of undisclosed capital
- Reassessment by the Assessing Officer

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 09.6.2014, which partially allowed the appeal contesting the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was delayed by one day, explained through an Affidavit by the appellant, citing engagement in identifying counsel for advice. The Tribunal found the explanation reasonable and admitted the appeal for hearing.

Issue 2: Non-disclosure of bank account and income
The appellant, a retailer in pharmaceuticals, was found to have an undisclosed bank account with substantial credits. The Revenue added and confirmed the entire amount credited to the ICICI bank account as unexplained income, as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the nature and source of the credits. The burden of proof to explain the deposits in the bank account lies on the assessee, and in the absence of such proof, the amount is deemed unexplained income.

Issue 3: Burden of proof on the assessee
The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving the nature and source of credits in the bank account rests with the assessee. The appellant claimed the withdrawals were for purchasing traded goods, with credits representing sale proceeds. The Revenue's approach was deemed unreasonable as the appellant provided evidence supporting the undisclosed business transactions, although the possibility of credits from sources other than cash deposits was acknowledged.

Issue 4: Verification of undisclosed transactions and expenses
The Tribunal highlighted the need to verify the undisclosed transactions and expenses claimed by the appellant. The turnover in undisclosed transactions exceeded the total credit in the bank account, raising questions about the nature of withdrawals and expenses. The Tribunal recommended a detailed examination of the appellant's business profile, turnover, and expenses to justify the claims made.

Issue 5: Treatment of undisclosed capital
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the undisclosed capital separately for addition, requiring the compilation of a consolidated balance sheet to reveal any unexplained capital. The AO was instructed to redo the assessment based on the undisclosed bank account to determine the assessable income accurately.

Issue 6: Reassessment by the Assessing Officer
The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to reassess the income based on the undisclosed bank account and credits. The decision was pronounced in an open court on September 21, 2016.

---