Tribunal Affirms Unexplained Money Ruling; Dismisses Appeal Due to 895-Day Delay and Insufficient Justification.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)-NFAC's order, citing insufficient justification for the 895-day delay in filing. The Tribunal upheld the classification of Rs. 15,42,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act due to the assessee's non-compliance and inadequate documentation. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a sufficient cause under the Limitation Act, affirming the CIT(A)-NFAC's decision.

---

---

Issues:
The appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2017-18.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC belatedly with a delay of 895 days. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC concluded that the delay could not be attributed to any reasonable cause other than negligence and deliberate inaction by the assessee. The reasons provided were deemed insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal upheld this decision after considering the principles of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a sufficient cause to justify the delay. The Supreme Court precedent highlighted that negligence or inaction cannot be considered sufficient cause. As the assessee failed to provide plausible reasons for the delay, the Tribunal affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)-NFAC's decision.

Unexplained Cash Deposits:
The case involved cash deposits of Rs. 15,42,000 during the demonetization period. The Ld. AO treated this amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices and failure to provide supporting documentary evidence. The assessee contended that the cash deposits were from earlier cash withdrawals and were disclosed under the PMGKY scheme, thus should not be considered unexplained. Additionally, an alternative argument was made to treat the cash deposits as business receipts under section 44AD for taxation purposes. However, since the assessee did not appear during the appeal hearing, the Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the appeal based on available records. The Ld. DR supported the CIT(A)-NFAC's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the delay and lack of proper explanation by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, emphasizing the importance of providing a sufficient cause to justify delays in filing appeals. The decision to treat the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act was upheld due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices and failure to provide necessary documentation. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of the Limitation Act and the lack of substantial reasons presented by the assessee, leading to the affirmation of the CIT(A)-NFAC's order.

---