Appeals partly allowed with remittance for further examination. Delay condoned. Assessments to be reevaluated with substantiated documentation.

The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals, remitting the issues back to the AO for further examination and proper computation of income based on the guidelines provided. The delay in filing appeals was condoned due to genuine reasons. The addition of unexplained investments and commission on real estate business was remitted for the AO to reevaluate with the requirement for the assessee to substantiate their claims with necessary documentation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals
2. Addition of Rs. 23,42,600 as Unexplained Investment
3. Addition of Rs. 1,50,42,950 as Receipt of Commission on Real Estate Business

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The assessee filed appeals with a delay of 423 days, citing the illness and eventual death of their Chartered Accountant as the reason. The Tribunal found the delay to be due to a genuine and sufficient cause and thus condoned the delay, admitting the appeals for adjudication.

2. Addition of Rs. 23,42,600 as Unexplained Investment:
The Assessing Officer (AO) had information that the assessee entered into an agreement to procure land and received substantial amounts through banking channels. The AO noticed unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, which the assessee claimed were refunds from property deals conducted on behalf of relatives. The AO rejected this explanation due to lack of plausible evidence and treated the deposits as unexplained investments. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting the absence of clinching evidence linking the deposits to refunds of advances for property purchases. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for de novo examination, requiring the assessee to substantiate their claim with copies of NRE bank accounts and details of refunds received.

3. Addition of Rs. 1,50,42,950 as Receipt of Commission on Real Estate Business:
The AO assessed the assessee's income from property transactions, noting discrepancies between the amounts received and paid for land procurement. The AO treated the difference as business profit. The CIT(A) considered the assessee as an agent, not a trader, and reduced the addition by estimating 50% of the money in the bank account as utilized for land purchases. The Tribunal found this estimation incorrect, asserting that an agent's income should be around 2% of the transaction value, not 50%. The Tribunal directed the AO to reassess the income at 2% of the transaction value and to re-examine the short-term capital gain issue, considering whether the property was acquired on behalf of a third party.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, remitting the issues back to the AO for further examination and proper computation of income based on the guidelines provided.

---