" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA No. 200/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Narikkolil Hameed .......... Appellant Narikolil House, Kummankode P.O. Nadapuram, Calicut 673504 [PAN: AAQPH1056H] vs. DDIT (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Kochi Appellant by: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru [CIT(A)], dated 09.12.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The appellant is a non-resident individual. The return of income for AY 2010-11 was filed on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 18,79,480/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax 2 ITA No. 200/Coch/2023 Narikkolil Hameed (International Taxation) (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 30.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 96,95,545/-. While doing so, the AO made addition on account of unexplained cash exposit in the bank account of Rs. 50,00,000/- and addition on account of capital gain of Rs. 27,56,092/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to recompute the capital gain after allowing brokerage expenditure of Rs. 1,67,500/- and the balance amount was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred, since the appellant was located at a distant place from the Tax Consultant, the order of the CIT(A) could not be communicated because of the old age of the appellant, etc. Therefore, the delay is not wilful or deliberate. Having considered the averments mae in the petition, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 37 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The order passed by the 3 ITA No. 200/Coch/2023 Narikkolil Hameed CIT(A) is a speaking order. The appellant had not made any submissions assailing the order of the CIT(A). In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in the order of the CIT(A) is called for. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 11th March, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "