9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctfully submitted that the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice, as the appellant was not willfully negligent but genuinely lacked knowledge of procedural requirements. 2. Unjustified Ex Partee Assessment under Section 144: The assessment under Section 144 was conducted without considering the genuine circumstances surrounding the appellant's financial status. The appellant was unemployed during the relevant financial year (2011-12) and had no independent source of income. The bank account in question was operated by an agent named Minesh Patel for the purpose of arranging the appellant's overseas travel. The appellant had executed a power of attorney authorizing the agent to manage the bank account and was unaware of the nature and extent of the transactions carried out. The addition made in the assessment order based on this account is therefore unjustified, as the transactions do not represent the appellant's income. 3. Non-Prosecution Dismissal by C1T(A): The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case. Multiple notices under Section 250 were issued to the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,07,183/-being the credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee, as income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) issued as many as seven notices of hearing, the details of which are tabulated below, but the assessee again remained non-compliant. The tabular chart of notices issued by Ld. CIT(Appeals) is reproduced below for ready reference: Sr. No. Date of Issue Notice Compliance date Status Remarks 1. 19.07.2022 03.08.2022 Served No Reply 2. 11.10.2022 18.10.2022 Served No Reply 3. 29.11.2022 14.12.2022 Served No Reply 4. 25.01.2023 09.02.2023 Served No Reply 5. 01.03.2023 16.03.2023 Served No Reply 6. 01.09.2023 08.09.2023 Served No Reply 7. 29.11.2023 (Show Cause) 05.12.2023 Served No Reply 5. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance by the assessee. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case and nor was any adjournment sought by the assessee. We observe that the assessee has all throughout remained non-compliant at all stages of proceedings. 7. We observe that even before u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi)/[2012] 205 Taxman 16 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2013] 353 ITR 163 (Delhi)[02-09-2011]. Hon'ble High Court made the following important observations on the subject: "The perusal of the impugned order would show that after discussing the law on the subject, the Tribunal pointed out that the burden lay on the assessee to prove identity of the investors, genuineness of capital/share application money and the capacity of the investors to pay. The Tribunal also recorded that such a burden was not discharged by the assessee in spite of the fact that two innings were given to assessee and in both the innings, number of opportunities were given. [Para 10] When such conduct of the assessee was noted by the Tribunal itself, there was no occasion to give another opportunity to the assessee. Interestingly, the Tribunal was conscious of this fact, which is clear from the reading of the impugned order. The Tribunal noticed that there were two courses open to it. First course was to draw an adverse inference against the assessee and second course was to restore the matter back to the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "5. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2017 after obtaining prior approval of Pr.CIT-3, Jaipur since there was an information with the Department that assessee had sold land vide Khasra No. 1091/954 during FY 2009-10 for Rs. 5,00,000/- within the municipal limits of Jaipur city. The value of this land under section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 is Rs. 8,36,375/-. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 11.08.2017 and served for compliance on 24.08.2017. There was no compliance by assessee to this notice u/s 142(1) and subsequent notices u/s 142(1) and final opportunity/show cause notice u/s 142(1) dated 11.09.2017 for compliance on 25.09.2017. Assessment u/s 147/144 was completed ex-parte on 21.12.2017 at total income of Rs. 8,31,375/-. Against this order, appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(Appeals)-3, Jaipur on 27.01.2018 who decided the appeal ex-parte on 19.12.2018 due to total non-compliance by assessee. Against this order assessee moved ITAT, Jaipur Bench, wherein the bench vide order in ITA No.206/JP/2019 dated 06.03.2020 set aside the issue to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. 6. Thus, the bench noted that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
