Court emphasized the necessity of cross-examination and adequate substantiation of claims in tax assessments.

आदशे/ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN (J.M):

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi, dated 29/07/2023 for A.Y.2017-18 which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) dated 23/03/2016.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under:-

1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["the learned Commissioner (Appeals)] erred in confirming the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the said addition being untenable and bad in law may be deleted.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,78,169/- representing the interest paid on the unsecured loans of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the said addition being untenable and bad in law may be deleted.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,38,405/- as made by the learned respondent on the presumption of the payment of commissioner for securing/arranging the unsecured loans of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, Thus, the said addition of Rs. Rs.1,38,405/- being illegal and untenable in law may be deleted.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, alter, modify any ground before the conclusion of the present appellate proceeding.

3. At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 520 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard Ld.AR drawing our attention to the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay, submitted that the notice was issued by the department on e-portal which assessee was not aware of impugned orders due to lack of knowledge. In light of the above, ld. AR requests to condone the delay.

4. Whereas, on the contrary, ld. DR contested the said application, requesting to dismiss the same as there was no ‘sufficient cause’ in filing the appeal late.

5. After having heard counsels for both the parties on the application for seeking condonation of delay, we are of the view that since there was no effective service of orders upon the assessee and due to lack of knowledge regarding the orders, assessee could not file the application in due time. Thus, keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst katiji , 1987, AIR, Supreme Court, 1353 and also keeping in view the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay and construing the expression ‘sufficient cause’ liberally, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and thus the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.

6. All the grounds raised by the assessee are inter-related and inter-connected and relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by the assessee u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds by the present consolidated order.

7. We have heard Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgment cited before us and also the order passed by the revenue authorities.

8. From the record we noticed that additions in the present case were made by the AO u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act on account of the fact that assessee had availed unsecured loan from three parties i.e. Josh Trading Pvt. Ltd., Pragati Gems Pvt. Ltd. & Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd., of sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each from these companies. But the AO was of the view that c