9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sources". The Return of Income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 02.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.6,66,050/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed ex-parte by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1), Pune ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 19.12.2016 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') after making addition on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of assessee of Rs.20,00,000/- and capital gains on sale of property of Rs.33,84,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed explanation in support of the sources of the cash depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal by 1058 days. The order of the ld. CIT(A) was served on appellant on 12.04.2019. The appeal is required to be filed on or before 11.06.2019. However, the appeal was filed on 19.03.2022. The delay period from 15.03.2020 to 28.03.2022 was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) dated 10.01.2022, wherein, the limitation prescribed by various statutes was suo motu extended on account of difficulties faced by the citizens of the country on account of Pandemic Covid-19. As regards to the delay in filing of the present appeal between 11.06.20019 to 15.03.2020, the appellant had filed the petition stating that the delay had occurred bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee any reason to reject the explanation of the assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have rejected the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- made on account of cash deposits. Thus, the ground of appeal no.1 stands allowed. 9. Ground of appeal no.2 challenges the addition on account of cost of improvement of Rs.4,12,000/-, we find that the appellant had failed to produce any evidence in support of the cost of improvement. Accordingly, we confirmed the addition. Thus, the ground of appeal no.2 stands dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
