TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct") and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Registry has noted the appeal to be time barred by 70 days. The assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay stating as under: "1. Appellant Assessee is a Salaried Individual who has filed his Income Tax Return for the year under consideration on 30th March, 2018 vide Acknowledgement Number: 556849120300318 declaring gross total income of Rs. 9,09,414/- Appellant's case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08/08/2018 for verification of Cash Deposits and Transaction in Property 2. During the relevant financial year, the Appellant had fulfilled his lifelong aspiration of purchasing a residentia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r from the bank 6. Appellant was under the incorrect impression that since it is a mistake apparent from record capable of being rectified in terms of provisions of section 154 of the Act appellant had filed the rectification application on 28-01-2025 (within a day from Ld CIT(A) Order) through online Income Tax Portal. Annexure-1 It is only subsequently, upon obtaining professional legal advice, that the Appellant was made aware that the remedy of rectification under section 154 may not extend to matters involving incorrect appreciation of facts, non-verification of day wise cashbook and denial of natural justice, and that the appropriate remedy lies in preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal 7. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ach other cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested night in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay in fact he runs a serious risk e must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. " 9. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court have in case of N. Balakrishnan Vs M Krishnamurthy ((1998) 7 SCC 123) promulgated that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of investment made by the assessee in immovable property remaining unexplained to the extent of Rs. 6,39,000/-. The orders of the authorities below reveal that the assessee was noted to have purchased immovable property, being Flat No.B-15 in Bhumika Apartment, as per conveyance deed on 09.09.2016 for a consideration of Rs.60 Lakhs which was paid from 07.05.2016 to 01.09.2016. The assessee also had paid stamp duty to Rs. 2,94,000/-, resulting in total investment made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 62,94,000/-. 6. The assessee explained the source of investment in the said property as under: i. Loan from Axis Bank Rs. 35 Lakhs ii. Borrowing from wife Rs. 10 Lakhs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see. The source of investment, it was contended, stood clearly explained and the authorities below having accepted source of investment from borrowings from the assesses family, the balance amount of Rs. 6.39 Lakhs clearly was out of his own savings from the salary earned by him. There was no reason, therefore it was stated, for treating any amount of investment made as unexplained vis a vis source. 9. These facts were demonstrated to us from the documents on record before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) which included the copy of bank statement of the assessee from where the entire investment was shown to have been made by the assessee. The Ld.DR was unable to controvert the said facts. The Ld. CIT(A), I have noted, completely misunderstood t....