TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 47 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee. As per the assessee, upon receipt of the impugned order, he approached his tax consultant, who, after going through the said order, advised the assessee to file an appeal. It is further submitted that the assessee met with an accident on 18.11.2025, injuring his left ankle, and underwent a medical procedure. As per the assessee, thereafter, he was advised to take complete bed rest for three weeks. Accordingly, as per the assessee, due to the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal could not be filed within th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....11-12-2019, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law. Ground2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the cash deposits made during the impugned year of Rs. 42,97,144/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, ignoring the fact that these deposits form part of the business receipts, as declared by assessee in his return filed on dt. 31-03-2018. Ground3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making an observation that the amount of cash deposit quantified at Rs. 42,97,144/- are the deposits made during demonetization, which is contrary to the facts of the case, as evident from the bank account statements obtained by Ld.AO fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... quashed OR directions be given to the Ld.AO to DELETE the additions made OR provide such other relief as the Honourable Tribunal may deem fit. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading in Stainless Steel and Aluminium utensils. On the basis of the information gathered during the online verification under "Operation Clean Money", it was noticed that the assessee has deposited substantial cash in his bank account during the demonetisation period and did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee requiring the assessee to file his return of income for the year under consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay of 429 days. Further, the learned CIT(A) noted that there was no response from the assessee despite the grant of ample opportunities. On merits as well, in the absence of any documents/details contrary to the findings of the AO, the learned CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ("learned AR") submitted that as the assessee lacks knowledge of income tax compliance, he engaged an Income Tax Professional ("ITP") for preparing and filing his return of income since 2015. It was further submitted that the PAN of the assessee was registered i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delay. During the hearing, the learned AR also referred to the affidavit of the ITP, which forms part of the paper book from Pages 17 - 20, to substantiate the factual averments. The learned AR further submitted that a specific application seeking condonation of delay was filed before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee has not stated any reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. Further, the learned AR submitted that all the notices for hearing were also sent to the e-mail address of the ITP and on account of his old age he was not actively pursuing his practice. Thus, these notices remained unattended. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the order p....