The Tribunal held that advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay. Further, there was no allegation from the Revenue that the appeal was deliberately not filed within the time. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee deserved to be condoned.

The assessee filed a return of income for the first time declaring an income of Rs. 2,66,710 under section 44AD of the Act and also disclosing a closing cash balance at Rs. 7,81,648 as on March 31, 2015. The assessee, however, claimed that the accountant had inadvertently filed the return under section 44AD, that the assessee being an agriculturist was not under obligation to file the Income-tax return. However, the AO treated the amount of Rs. 7,81,648 shown as closing cash balance as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal deleted additions as there was no evidence available on record to indicate that the case of the assessee was covered under the provisions of section 44AD except that in the Income-tax return the income was disclosed under the provisions of section 44AD. The Department failed to discharge the onus imposed upon it to disprove the contention of the assessee. Thus, whatever cash was available with the assessee was out of agricultural activity carried out in earlier years. Accordingly, the finding of the authorities was not sustainable.