IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Kishor D. Naik (HUF), Asst. CIT Central Circle-2, Namrata Villa, Nallasopara 6^th Floor, Room No. 13, Ashar I.T.

Road, Bolinj, Virar (West), Vs. Park, Road No. 16-Z. Wagle Virar-401303. Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604.

PAN NO. AAEHK 8794 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, CA Revenue by : Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 20/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/04/2025

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated

14.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune [in short „the Ld. CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2012-

13, raising following grounds :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax confirming the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 r.w.s.153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is both bad-in-law and bad-in-facts in so far as the assessment was completed without assuming valid jurisdiction in absence of recording of satisfaction in the case of searched.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax confirming the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 r.w.s.153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is both bad-in-law and bad-in-facts in so far as the assessment was completed after assuming jurisdiction without appreciating the fact that the documents found from digital evidence of Swastik Group did not belong to the appellant.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax confirming the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 r.w.s. 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is both bad-in-law and bad-in-facts in so far as the assessment order was passed without generating DIN.

4. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED LOAN AS REFLECTED IN SEIZED DOCUMENT IN BUNDLE NO.8, PARTY NO.A-3 (DIGITAL EVIDENCES) : RS.50,00,000/-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax in confirming the addition of Rs,50,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of Unaccounted loan as reflected in seized document in Bundle No.8, Party No.A-3 (Digital Evidences) without satisfying that noting of the seized record found during the course of search has to be found to be correct in terms of sec. 292C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

2. At the threshold, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal has been instituted with a delay of seventy-six (76) days. In support thereof, reliance has been placed upon the affidavit sworn by Shri Ritesh, the accountant of the assessee. It has been submitted that the delay occasioned as a result of the inadvertent misplacement of the impugned order by the said accountant. Consequently, the said order could not be furnished to the authorised consultant within the prescribed period for filing the appeal. Upon the eventual retrieval and transmission of the said order to the consultant, and acting upon the professional advice so received, the appeal was filed without any further delay. Learned counsel has contended that the lapse was purely inadvertent and unintentional, devoid of any element of malafide, and has accordingly prayed for condonation of delay on account of bona fide circumstances.

3. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties in relation to the issue of condonation of delay. Upon perusal of the material on record and the explanation offered by the assessee, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay appears to have been occasioned by an inadvertent and bonafide lapse on the part of the accountant, without any malafide intent attributable to the assessee. I