TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resentative logged into the e-filing portal. The assessee thereafter obtained legal advice and filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 22.01.2026. Thus, in this process the delay of 84 days has happened. Hence, the ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was not attributable to the negligence of assessee and therefore, the same should be condoned. Hence, the ld. AR prayed that the appeal should be decided on merit of the case. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, the ld. DR left the issue at the discretion of the Bench. 4. We have considered the explanation and arguments advanced by both the parties and examined the affidavit furnished by the assessee. The delay does not appear to be intentional or deliberate. The assessee did not gain any benefit by filing the appeal late. On coming to know about the appellate order, it took steps to obtain legal advice and file the appeal. It is settled law that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally where the conduct of the assessee is bona fide. Ordinarily, a genuine dispute should be decided on the merits and not rejected on a technical ground of lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... crores in cash to the members of the Employees Welfare Association. The payments were made as under: Date Amount 25.04.2015 Rs. 1,00,00,000 04.05.2015 Rs. 1,00,00,000 25.05.2015 Rs. 75,00,000 Total Rs. 2,75,00,000 6.4 The assessee submitted that all these payments were made before its (firm) constitution on 01.09.2015. Therefore, the assessee did not make these payments. The project was subsequently transferred from M/s Veegee Developers to the assessee because further funds were required. The liability relating to the earlier payment of Rs. 2.75 crore was taken over by the assessee through a book entry. 6.5 It was further submitted that the cash available with M/s Veegee Developers was generated from advances received from prospective buyers of sites. In response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, M/s Veegee Developers confirmed the payment. It also furnished a cash flow statement showing cash receipts of Rs. 2,28,72,000 from prospective buyers and bank withdrawals of Rs. 1,48,87,100.00 only. 6.6 Regarding the balance amount of Rs. 25 lakh, the assessee submitted that it was not paid in cash. The amount was initially paid by M/s Vee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the list of disputed members of the Employees Welfare Association to whom the payments were made. It also furnished the list and address proofs of the prospective buyers who had paid advances to M/s Veegee Developers. 8.3 The assessee requested the Ld. CIT(A) to conduct an enquiry regarding the genuineness of these transactions. It contended that the AO made the addition without making any enquiry from the prospective buyers or the recipients of the cash. 8.4 Regarding Rs. 25 lakh, the assessee submitted that the payment was made through banking channels. The amount was subsequently returned by the Employees Welfare Association and was credited to the bank account of M/s Veegee Developers on 22.09.2015. Therefore, the same could not be treated as an unexplained cash payment. 8.5 However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 3 crore. He observed that Shri B. Vinay had admitted in his sworn statement that Rs. 3 crore was paid in cash by the assessee. The statement had not been retracted. According to the Ld. CIT(A), no reliable material was produced to disprove the admission. 8.6 The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the claim of M/s Veegee Developers having received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that Shri B. Vinay had clearly admitted on oath that Rs. 3 crore was paid in cash. The statement was never retracted. Therefore, it constituted valid evidence against the assessee. 11.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that the identity and creditworthiness of the prospective buyers and the genuineness of the alleged advances were not established. M/s Veegee Developers had not filed financial statements showing the availability of sufficient cash. The Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the addition made u/s 69 of the Act should be confirmed. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and examined the materials available on record. The core issue before us is whether the cash payment of Rs. 3 crore can be treated as an unexplained investment made by the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. 12.1 Admittedly, the assessee firm was constituted on 01.09.2015. This fact is not in dispute. The payments aggregating to Rs. 2.75 crore were stated to have been made on 25.04.2015, 04.05.2015 and 25.05.2015. All these payments were made several months before the assessee firm came into existence. An entity....