This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 30.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, both lower authorities erred in making an addition of Rs.44,61,237/- on account of gifts received by the appellant and treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2) Based on the facts of the case, both lower authorities erred in taxing the gifts to the tune of Rs.42,61,237/-which were received in earlier assessment years u/s 68 of the Act.

3) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the both lower authorities erred in making an addition of Rs.14,05,000/- on account of commission/ dalali income received by the Appellant and treating the same as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act. 1961

4) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the both lower authorities erred in making an addition of Rs.14,05,000/- on account of commission/ dalali income received by the Appellant in utter disregard of the principle of consistency.

5) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the both lower authorities erred in making an addition of Rs.10,79,025/- on account of investment in agricultural land by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts that sources of the same stood explained.

6) Without prejudice to Ground No.5, both lower authorities erred in doubly taxing the amount of Rs.10,79,025/- u/s 68 of the Act.

7) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the both lower authorities erred in making an addition of Rs.3,10,663/-, on account of non-deduction of tax at source u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of interest paid on borrowed funds 8) Without prejudice to Ground No.4, the Appellant submits that the disallowance uls 40(a)(ia) ought to be restricted to 30% of the amount on which tax was net deducted at source.

The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any or all the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal, as they may be advised from time to time.”

3. The appeal filed by the assessee is late by 184 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that he had no knowledge of Income-tax law. He appointed Mr. Bhadresh Soni, tax consultant, who looked after his tax matter since past many years. His tax consultant informed him that refund was issued after completion of assessment proceedings. Subsequently, he came to know about the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, after which he immediately informed his tax consultant. Thereafter, he approached another Chartered Accountant, Mr. Darshit J. Naik, who guided him to appeal filed before the Tribunal. He submitted that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate and circumstances beyond his control. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee requested that the delay may be condoned.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR)

for the revenue submitted that the Bench may decide the matter as it thinks fit.

5. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that he was unaware of the tax proceedings and could not file appeal in time before the Tribunal. We find that there was a lack of guidance on the part his earlier tax consultant who looked after his tax matter. The delay was neither deliberate no