2003 (4) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Delay of six days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - Tribunal after considering all the aspects took the view that the appellant had not satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay of six days. We find that the assessing authority and the first appellate authority had clearly stated that the assessee had not produced any material whatsoever to show that the gross profit on motor vehicles is only less than five per cent - Tribunal was justified in disposing of the appeal by stating that there is a delay of six days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal but the assessee has not explained the cause of delay to the satisfaction of the Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of a partnership firm for the year 1991-92 under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal based on delay in filing and lack of satisfactory explanation.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant, a partnership firm dealing in Yamaha Motor Cycles and spare parts, had its assessment completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer rejected the gross profit rate of four percent shown by the appellant, instead adopting 15 percent as the normal profit in the business line due to lack of maintained accounts and transaction details. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but failed to provide any substantiating material despite numerous adjournments granted for hearings. The first appellate authority noted the appellant's failure to engage an authorized representative and lack of evidence to support the claim, ultimately disposing of the appeal on its merits.

Issue 2: Subsequently, the appellant filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, seeking condonation of delay. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had continuously sought adjournments without appearing for hearings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to a delay of six days in filing without a satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's repeated failure to present evidence or justifications for the delay, ultimately upholding the decision based on the lack of material to support the appellant's claims. Despite arguments by the appellant's counsel regarding the delay and the lack of evidence to challenge the Assessing Officer's profit rate determination, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, resulting in the dismissal of the income-tax appeal.

In conclusion, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal, highlighting the appellant's consistent failure to provide material evidence or satisfactory explanations for the delay in filing the appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims with evidence and complying with procedural requirements in tax assessments and appeals.