9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al: "1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order in contravention of provisions of section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order passed by ld. Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even when the same was passed without reasonable opportunity and without providing reasons recorded u/s.148(2) of the Act. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 34,09,870/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being entire amount of cash deposited in bank account. 4) The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 5) The appellant reserves the right to addition, after or omit all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice." 3. Succinctly stated, as per the AIR information, it was observed by the A.O that though the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 34,09,866/- in his savings bank account during the year consideration but had not filed his return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsequently, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on 28.09.2018 and 02.11.2018 which also remained uncompiled. Finally, the AO issued a show cause notice on 26.11.2018 asking the appellant to show cause as to why assessment not be completed u/s 144 of the Act. No reply of any kind was furnished by the appellant. Left with no other alternative, the AO passed an order u/s 144 of the Act on 16.12.2018 treating the cash deposits as unexplained and bringing it to tax u/s 69A of the Act. Therefore, it is seen that in spite of being given multiple opportunities, the appellant did not make any compliance during the assessment proceedings. As such, it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that adequate opportunity to represent his case was not afforded by the AO. It is also relevant here to mention that though in the Statement of Facts filed along with Form 35, the appellant has cited illness as the reason for not participating in the assessment proceedings, in the medical certificate enclosed by the appellant, the Medical Officer has only certified that the appellant was under his treatment for the period from 30.12.2018 to 02.04.2019. Considering that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied. Appellant unsuccessfully visited ld. Assessing Officer's office several times. 8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has averred in the appeal order that notice u/s.250 was issued to Appellant by uploading on ITBA portal but Appellant did not comply, therefore the appeal was decided ex-parte on 03/08/2023 and it appears that the appellate order was also uploaded in applicant's account in Income tax portal. 9. The applicant randomly visited ITBA portal to know the status of the appeals on 02/11/2023 and has come across the appellate order passed u/s.250 of the Act passed ex-parte and therefore delay has occurred. 10. Immediately thereafter the Appellant is filing the appeals within the shortest time possible. 11. That there was delay of 39 days in filing the appeals and in view of facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the delay being less than.......which occurred for reasons beyond applicant's control and he is filing the present appeal with prayer for condonation of delay considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 12. That as per applicant understanding there are fair chances of substantial relief in further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee to put up his case on merits before him but he had once again adopted an evasive approach and on no occasion participated in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. For the sake of clarity, the details of notices issued by the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as follows: Date of Notice Date of Hearing Compiled/Not Compiled 11.02.2021 26.02.2021 Not Compiled 16.03.2023 23.03.2023 Not Compiled 06.07.2023 14.07.2023 Not Compiled The CIT(Appeals) taking notice of the fact that the assessee had adopted an evasive approach and, despite being well informed, had not only chosen not to participate in the proceedings before him but also, despite sufficient opportunities, had not placed on record any submissions whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise to substantiate his claim that the A.O had erred in treating the cash deposit of Rs. 34,09,868/- in his bank account as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, thus, upheld the order passed by the A.O u/ss.144/147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2018. 12. Now, in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the conduct of the assessee remains the same as was there before the lower authorities. I, say so, for the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y.1999-2000, dated 23.03.2020, had held that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, then, the discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. Reverting to the facts of the present case, I have already examined the reasons that had led to the delay, which has not been explained by the assessee to have occasioned due to bonafide reasons. As observed by me hereinabove, as the assessee had remained negligent regarding the process of law even before the Assessing authority and the first appellate authority, and had filed the appeal before me after 39 days, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the delay therein involved. Also, I may observe at this juncture that the law of limitation has to be construed strictly as it has an effect of vesting with one and taking away the right from the other party. The delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a rou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeals the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the delay involved in preferring the captioned appeal, therefore, I decline to condone the delay of 39 days and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 350/RPR/2023 for A.Y.2013-14 is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations. ITA No. 351/RPR/2023 A.Y.2014-15 18. The Ld. AR submitted that the present appeal is time barred by 166 days. The Ld. AR had drawn my attention to an application for condonation of delay a/w. "affidavit" dated 06.11.2023 filed by the assessee explaining the reasons leading to the delay. As contents of the application for condonation of delay remains the same as were there in ITA No. 350/RPR/2023 for A.Y.2013-14, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same are not being extracted. 19. As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeal remains the same as were there before me in the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 350/RPR/2023 for assessment year 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
