Genuine share transactions and ineffective service support condonation, while unexplained cash credit additions on long-term gains were deleted.

Belated filing was condoned where notice of the first appellate proceedings had not been effectively served at the e-mail address given in the appeal papers, and the delay was found neither intentional nor deliberate. The Tribunal also stated that long-term capital gain could not be treated as unexplained cash credit when the share transactions were genuine, routed through banking channels and a recognised stock exchange, with STT paid and the shares held for more than seven years; the related addition for unexplained expenditure as commission consequently could not survive. The reopening challenge was treated as covered by the earlier common order, and the additions were deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. (ii) Whether the addition made by treating the long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit and the consequential addition for unexplained expenditure were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was filed belatedly, but the record showed that notice of the first appellate proceedings was not effectively served on the assessee at the e-mail address furnished in the appeal papers. In these peculiar facts, the delay was held to be neither intentional nor deliberate.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made by treating the long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit and the consequential addition for unexplained expenditure were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee's case was found to be materially identical to the connected family members' cases, in which the Tribunal had already accepted the genuineness of the share transactions and the jurisdictional High Court had declined to interfere. The assessee had held the shares for more than seven years, routed the purchase and sale through banking channels and a recognised stock exchange, and paid STT on sale. On these facts, the Tribunal held that the long-term capital gain could not be treated as unexplained cash credit. Once the main addition failed, the consequential commission addition as unexplained expenditure also could not survive. The challenge to reopening was also treated as covered by the earlier decision relied upon in the common order.

Conclusion: The additions were deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's appeals succeeded, and the impugned assessments were not sustained to the extent challenged before the Tribunal.

---