आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal emanating from the order dated 02.07.2025 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(Dispute Resolution Panel-1), Mumbai-1 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(DRP 1)”] pertaining to the order passed u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1. On facts and circumstances of case, the Ld. A. O. and Hon. DRP has erred in initiating re-opening proceedings by issue of a Notice U/s. 148 dated 30/03/2024, which is issued beyond the time limit specified U/s. 149 and time barred.

2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. A. O. and Hon. DRP is not justified in making aggregate addition of Rs. 2,90,00,000/- on account of Unexplained Money U/s. 69 based on some ledger entries seized in Tally Data at third party premises consequent to search initiated on VETO Group. The Ld. A. O. and Hon. DRP failed to appreciate that the Ledger (in which the alleged entries of unaccounted cash transactions) are made doesnot pertain to the Applicant.

3. Without prejudice to above, the addition of Rs. 2,90,00,000/- the Ld. A. O. and Hon. DRP has erred in law and on facts of case in violating the principle of natural justice by not giving opportunity to Cross-examine the person who has made entries in Tally and on which reliance was placed while finalizing tax assessment.

3. At the outset, it was noticed that the appeal is delayed by 45 days. An application for condonation of delay has been submitted by the assessee stating he is an NRI and was neither aware of the final assessment order dated 28.8.2025 nor was served on him. Only upon coming to India he could know of it. The delay is stated to be unintentional and the assessee always remained cooperative in DRP proceedings. The delay was a bonafide mistake which may be condoned. Considering the above stated facts, we take a liberal view of the matter and condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, filed the return declaring the total income of Rs. 1,70,190/-.Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2024 was issued. The reasons recorded stated that a search was initiated on 12/12/2021 on VETO Group, Jaipur and certain Tally Data named “VIKAS” was seized, which allegedly contained unaccounted cash transactions aggregating to Rs. 49,83,56,645/. One ledger in the name of ‘JBP’ was identified to be belonging to the assessee reflecting debit entries of Rs. 95 lakh and credit entries of 1.95 cr. The assessee filed objections challenging the time limit u/s 149 of the Act and also denied having made cash transactions. The AO issued show cause notice proposing an addition of Rs. 2.90 cr. u/s. 69 of the Act. In response, he again denied any cash transactions with the entity Vikas or VETO group. He also applied to seek cross-objections of persons in charge of making entries in Tally data from VETO Group. The AO rejected the submission and passed the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act by making addition of Rs. 2.90 cr. u/s 69of the Actas Unexplained money. The assessee, thereafter filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which vide order u/s. 144C(5), rejected the objections and directed the AO to make additions as per the draft order.

5. The ground no.1 challenging the validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Act being time barred is taken up first. According to the DRP, in this case, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on ground that information contained in the documents found and seized during the search proceedings conducted u/s 132 and survey action u/s 133A of the Act on the entities of the Veto Group of Jaipur on 12.12.2021 showed that the assessee had paid cash amounting of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- to Veto Group and received cash amounting to Rs. 95,00,000/-from it during the year which was not recorded in b