TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, but was for the reasons stated in application which appears to be bonafide. Thus, the delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. This is second round of litigation before the Tribunal in assessee's case for AY 2009-10. Earlier cross appeals were filed by the Revenue and the assessee in ITA No. 2493/Del/2013 and 2303/del/2013. The Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose and restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 133(6) issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer could not be delivered as insufficient address. However the letter could not be delivered as the Factory was closed due to sealing by Delhi Government. However since the payments were made through banking channel in subsequent year which were verified by the Ld. AO should not be added to the income of the assessee. 3. That the account of M/s Viraj Industries has been reduced to Nil in Financial Year 2011-12. That the assessment of the assessee for Asst. Year 2011-12 was completed under scrutiny and Ld. Assessing Officer had send the Notice U/s 133(6) to M/s Viraj Industries who had submitted the reply and confirmed the outstanding balance due from assessee and accordingly no adverse i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion on this ground is warranted. Especially when there is sealing is everywhere and the Industries / Factories are closed due to pollution. Otherwise also assessee should not be penalized for the transactions of almost 9 years old. 4. Reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncement in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO, ward 35(2), ITA No.399/Del/2017 in which it was held that "The very fact these amounts are being shown as payable in the balance sheet of the assessee go to establish that there was no cessation of liability. Further reliance is also placed on the judicial pronouncement in the case of Shri Sandeep Kundalia vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), New Delhi in which it was held that the purchase invoices placed by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has arisen whereas assessee had declared the Long Term Capital Loss in the ITR. 7. This is to draw your kind attention to the fact that as per VDIS,1997 scheme any person can declare any asset which were not declared in earlier year by stating the year of purchase and has to pay the tax as on the value as on date. Accordingly assessee had also declared his undeclared Jewellery which were received by him in the Asst. Year 1972-73 and 1986-87, accordingly the cost of acquisition of Jewellery should be taken as the year of acquisition of Asst. Year 1972-73 and 1986-87 and indexed rate(s) should be applied accordingly. Since there is no basis on which cost of acquisition should be taken for the Asst. Year 1986-87, no additions on acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied sundry creditors. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has repaid M/s. Vaibhav Enterprises in April 2009 through banking channel and the same has been verified by the AO by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the banks. The notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act issued to Vaibhav Enterprises was not served as the factory was closed due to sealing by the Delhi Govt. I find that except for oral assertions no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the assessee to substantiate creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. The onus to prove creditworthiness and identity of the creditors is on the assessee. The assessee has failed to discharge the same. Hence, addition of Rs. 17,05,799/- is uphel....