309-day late ITAT appeal blamed on prior counsel's email; delay condonation denied, appeal dismissed as time-barred.

The dominant issue was whether a 309-day delay in filing an appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. The appellant attributed the delay to the CIT(A) order being delivered to an email account of prior counsel, but the ITAT held the appellant itself had furnished that email in Form 35 and found it implausible that the e-filing portal was not accessed for 309 days, rendering the explanation unsubstantiated and not a "good and sufficient" cause. Condonation was refused, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without examining the merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 11,31,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice by not confronting the assessee with the remand report.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Summary:

1. Addition of Rs. 11,31,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The A.O initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued a notice u/s 148. The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,29,839/-. During assessment, the A.O observed cash deposits of Rs. 11,31,000/- in the assessee's bank account, which were held as unexplained cash credit u/s 69. The A.O determined the income at Rs. 12,60,840/-. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this addition, rejecting the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were from the sale proceeds of rural agricultural land sold by his father, as the sale deed was registered after the cash deposits were made.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The assessee contended that the CIT(Appeals) erred by not confronting him with the remand report submitted by the A.O and not providing an opportunity to file a rejoinder, thus violating principles of natural justice. However, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal after considering the A.O's remand report, which stated that no gift deed was produced and the cash deposits were made before the sale deed registration.

3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 309 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the order being dropped in the email account of his previous counsel, who failed to inform him. The Tribunal found this explanation unsubstantiated and noted that the e-filing portal was not accessed for 309 days. The Tribunal, citing the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. The Income-tax Officer, declined to condone the delay, emphasizing that condoning such delays without sufficient cause would set a wrong precedent.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, without addressing the merits of the case, due to the substantial and unsubstantiated delay in filing. The order was pronounced in open court on 28th May, 2024.

---