Tribunal Allows Appeal Due to Delay, Emphasizes Due Process

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to professional pressure and admitted it for hearing. Regarding the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs under section 68 of the Act, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer did not adequately consider the appellant's explanations and solely relied on a statement without allowing cross-examination. The order of Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded to the A.O. for fresh examination with directions to provide the appellant with an opportunity for cross-examination if requested. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of due process and examination of facts.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal
2. Addition of Rs. 15 lakhs under section 68 of the Act

Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal
The appellant's appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 119 days. The appellant attributed the delay to the professional pressure on its authorized representative, who failed to file the appeal in time. The appellant requested the bench to condone the delay, stating that it was beyond their control. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.

Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 15 lakhs under section 68 of the Act
The case involved the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of solar panels, availing a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs from a concern named M/s. Sampada Chemicals Ltd. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) reopened the assessment based on information that the concern provided bogus accommodation entries. The A.O. added the loan amount to the appellant's income under section 68 of the Act, which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). The appellant contended that the loan was genuine, repaid through banking channels with interest, and TDS was deducted. The A.O. relied on a statement by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhat without giving the appellant an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal found that the A.O. did not examine the appellant's explanations adequately and solely relied on Shri Vipul Vidur Bhat's statement. It was noted that the A.O. should have considered the ledger accounts, explanations, and circumstances to determine the transaction's genuineness. The Tribunal held that the appellant should have been given an opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the order of Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded to the A.O. for fresh examination, with directions to provide the appellant with an opportunity for cross-examination if requested.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal emphasizing the importance of due process and examination of facts in such cases.

---