2024 (7) TMI 718 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Allows 509-Day Delay, Orders Fresh Adjudication on Unexplained Cash Credit of Rs. 61,45,653 u/s 68.

Mrs. Rinky Kapoor Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

Mrs. Rinky Kapoor Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai - TMI Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Addition of unexplained cash credit as long term capital gain, Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A), Restoration of matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudicationIn the present case, the primary issue before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai was the delay of 509 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons provided in the affidavit by the assessee, condoned the delay and proceeded to adjudicate on the matter. The next issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 61,45,653/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, which the Assessing Officer treated as long term capital gain earned by the assessee on the sale of shares. The assessee had claimed this amount as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. The Tribunal noted the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenging this addition and found it necessary to delve into the merits of the case.Regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance of the assessee, the Tribunal observed that the order passed by the CIT(A) was brief and lacked detailed reasoning. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of passing a speaking order as per the provisions of section 250 of the Act, requiring a thorough examination and analysis of the material on record by the CIT(A).In its decision to remit the matter back to the CIT(A), the Tribunal directed the assessee to actively participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A) and not seek adjournments without valid reasons. The Tribunal clarified that by restoring the case to the CIT(A), it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the assessment procedure open for the CIT(A) to conduct a comprehensive review. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, indicating that the decision was made without delving into the substantive merits of the case.