Unexplained investment under section 69 fails when documentary evidence shows payment from a close relative's disclosed bank account.

A justice-oriented approach was applied to condone a 79-day delay in filing the first appeal, where the assessee showed bona fide cause, lack of independent income and dependence on tax consultants. On the merits, an addition as unexplained investment under section 69 was unsustainable because the assessee produced the sale deed, bank statements and payment trail showing direct remittance from the father's disclosed bank account to the seller. Once that primary onus was discharged, the burden shifted to the Revenue, which brought no adverse material; suspicion and the absence of a formal gift deed were insufficient to uphold the addition. The appeal was allowed and the addition was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation; (ii) Whether the addition made as unexplained investment under section 69 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation showed that the assessee was a homemaker, had no independent source of income, depended on tax consultants, and offered a bona fide cause for the delay. In such circumstances, a justice-oriented approach was warranted and the appeal ought not to have been thrown out on a technical ground.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made as unexplained investment under section 69 was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee produced the sale deed, bank statements and payment trail showing direct remittance from the father's disclosed bank account to the seller. Once the primary onus was discharged, the burden shifted to the Revenue, which failed to bring any adverse material to show that the assessee herself made the investment from undisclosed sources. The addition rested on suspicion, including the absence of a formal gift deed and enquiry into the father's credits, which was insufficient to sustain the addition in the assessee's hands. The surrounding family circumstances and banking evidence supported the explanation.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69 was held to be unsustainable and was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the impugned addition was deleted in full after condoning the appellate delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee produces reliable documentary evidence showing that the investment was made directly by a close relative from a disclosed bank account, the primary onus stands discharged and an addition under section 69 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on the ground that the relative's source of credits was not separately examined.

---