The assessee has to offer a satisfactory explanation about the nature of the source of impugned credit or debit (money, bullion, jewellery, any valuable article, i.e., assets), as the case may be.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the department.

2. While admitting the appeal this Court on 26.09.2012 framed following substantial question of law:-

"Whether, the tribunal was justified in law in admitting new plea contrary to the facts on record and contrary to the Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and to based his findings thereon while sustaining the addition of Rs. 12.50 lacs, can be said to be legal one?"

3. However, on an application moved on 08.09.2017, We have added one more question on 20.9.2017 which reads as under:-

"Whether addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the IT Act, and deleted by the CIT(A), can be controverted under section 69A by the Tribunal while sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,50 lacs, irrespective of the fact that the appellant is not maintaining books of accounts and source of income is pension and interest only, such conclusion is proper?"

4. The Tribunal in its order dated 2.3.2012 has observed as under:-

"2. The facts of the case are that at the very outset, it was observed by the Bench that Revenue''s appeal is delayed by a period of 28 days, having been filed on 0108-2011 as against the communication date (of the order appealed against) of 0205-2011. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer (''CIT'') vide order dated 27-07-2011, issued in response to the defect notice issued by the Registry of the Tribunal, clarified that the appellate order by the ld. CIT(A) was in fact communicated to his office only on 03- 06-2011, so that limitation expires on 0108-2011. Our 2 attention was drawn thereto by the ld. DR, in view which we condone the delay. Not only are we are inclined to give due credence to the statement by a responsible officer, the reason stated is only understandable inasmuch as the impugned order is itself dated 02/5/2011, so that the specification of its receipt date in F/36 as ''02/5/2011'' appears to be by way of a mistake. The hearing of the appeal was accordingly proceeded with, with the assessee having preferred to furnish written submissions, placed on record.

3.1 The appeal raises three issues. We shall deal with the principal issue, raised per the third ground, first, the other two even otherwise getting subsumed therein. The same relates to the restriction of the addition in the sum of Rs. 15,51,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit by the assessee in his savings bank account with Union Bank of India, to Rs. 81,000/-. The details of the transactions in the said bank account are as under: