Tribunal admits delayed appeal, directs AO to delete additions, remands cash investments for fresh consideration.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitted it for adjudication on merits, and directed the AO to delete additions related to investments made in earlier years and explained cheque transactions. The tribunal remanded the matter of cash investments to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing its limited observations to the assessment year 2009-10. The order was pronounced on 31/10/2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the source of investment in property.
3. Justification of partial relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
4. Assessment of the source of investment in property and the related evidences provided by the assessee.
5. Reassessment of cash investments made during the year under consideration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal by the assessee was filed late by 5 days. The assessee explained the delay was due to a bonafide belief that the appeal would reach the court in time, which was delayed due to speed post services. The tribunal found the reasons satisfactory and condoned the delay under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act (I.T. Act), admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits.

2. Validity of Additions Made by the AO Regarding the Source of Investment in Property:
The AO added Rs. 55,39,100/- as the entire amount of investment in immovable property, noting the cost of the property and stamp duty. The CIT(A) partially upheld this addition, confirming Rs. 38,58,100/- and deleting the rest. The assessee contended that the actual sole consideration of the property was Rs. 35,00,000/-, with the higher value considered only for stamp duty purposes. The tribunal agreed that the investment made in earlier years should not be added in the year under consideration, emphasizing that each assessment year is separate and self-contained.

3. Justification of Partial Relief Granted by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) allowed partial relief by deleting part of the addition made by the AO but upheld Rs. 38,58,100/-. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions despite providing confirmation certificates, bank accounts, and source of income from the persons from whom the money was taken to invest in the property. The tribunal directed the AO to delete additions related to investments made in earlier years and cheque transactions adequately explained by the assessee's bank balances.

4. Assessment of the Source of Investment in Property and the Related Evidences Provided by the Assessee:
The assessee provided a detailed breakdown of payments made towards the property, including copies of bank accounts, confirmation from family members, and relevant judgments supporting their case. The tribunal noted that the total investment during the year was Rs. 12,58,100/-, with Rs. 6,05,100/- paid by cheque and Rs. 6,53,100/- in cash. The tribunal found that the cheque payments were adequately explained by the brought forward opening balances in the bank accounts and directed the AO to delete these additions. The tribunal also restored the matter of cash investments to the AO for fresh consideration.

5. Reassessment of Cash Investments Made During the Year Under Consideration:
The tribunal directed the AO to pass a fresh order on the merits of the cash investment totaling Rs. 6,53,100/-, considering the explanation provided by the assessee. The tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits at this stage, instructing the AO to decide the issue in accordance with the law and facts of the case.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the additions related to investments made in earlier years and adequately explained cheque transactions should be deleted. The matter of cash investments was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The tribunal emphasized that its observations and directions were limited to the assessment year 2009-10, with no opinion expressed for any other year.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2018.

---