Reassessment on wrong facts, agricultural land exemption failure, and cash transaction penalties were all sustained on merits.

The Tribunal accepted the explanation for delayed filing and treated the appeals as within time under section 253(3). On merits, it upheld reassessment under section 147 because the original assessment rested on wrong facts and the reopening was not a mere change of opinion. The assessee failed to prove that the land qualified for agricultural land exemption under section 2(14)(iii)(b), so the exemption claim was rejected, and the deduction claimed under section 24 was also sustained in disallowance. The penalties were likewise upheld because the cash receipt was treated as a loan or deposit in breach of section 269SS and the cash repayment attracted section 269T, with no evidence sufficient to rebut those findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals were liable to be dismissed as time barred under section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the additions and penalties sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) required interference on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals were liable to be dismissed as time barred under section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The delay in filing was explained by the assessee with reference to the dates of receipt of the orders, deposit of tribunal fee within time, and personal hardship. The explanation was accepted and the appeals were not treated as barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The appeals were not dismissed as time barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the additions and penalties sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) required interference on merits.

Analysis: The reassessment under section 147 was upheld because the original assessment had proceeded on wrong facts and there was no mere change of opinion. The claim of exemption in respect of agricultural land was rejected since the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving that the land fell within the exempt category under section 2(14)(iii)(b). The disallowance of deduction claimed under section 24 was also sustained. On the penalty appeals, the receipt of cash was treated as a loan or deposit in violation of section 269SS, and the cash repayment was treated as attracting section 269T; the assessee did not produce evidence sufficient to displace these findings.

Conclusion: The additions and penalties were upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in the challenges to the reassessment, the disallowance, or the penalties, and the assessee's appeals failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is based on wrong facts and the assessee fails to prove exemption or rebut the characterization of cash transactions as loan or deposit, the reassessment and consequential additions or penalties are sustainable.

---