9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1329 - AT - Income TaxNon-prosecution of appeal by assessee - Undisclosed investment - as alleged assessee could not prove identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties - HELD THAT - As none appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notices, the assessee in its letter head sought for adjournment on 16.03.2021, whereby the appeals were adjourned to 15.04.2021. Again another adjournment was sought for 29.12.2022 and the appeals adjourned to 13.02.2023. It is thereafter, eleven occasions the above appeals were adjourned from time to time and finally on 01.02.2024, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, in spite of service of notices to the assessee. This clearly shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Further the assessee failed to file any documents in support of its Grounds of appeal. Also noticed there is delay of 790 days in filing this appeal, but the assessee has not filed any Affidavit explaining the delay. In the absence of condonation petition explaining the delay, the present appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. Appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Where the appellant in spite of notice is persistently absent and the Tribunal on facts of the case is of the view that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya 1979 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it. Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-appearance of the assessee and lack of representation. 2. Addition of Rs. 16,61,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Delay in filing the appeal and lack of explanation for the delay. 5. Additions made for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and non-cooperation of the assessee. Summary: 1. Non-appearance of the assessee and lack of representation: The appeals were heard 46 times, but the assessee did not appear or provide authorization for representation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal, as evidenced by repeated adjournments and lack of document submission. 2. Addition of Rs. 16,61,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee could not prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share investments received from four parties. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the addition, citing that the assessee failed to establish the necessary details and that the AO's efforts to verify the investors' credentials were justified. 3. Addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The AO also added Rs. 3,75,50,000/- as unexplained advances received by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, agreeing with the AO's assessment that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties involved. 4. Delay in filing the appeal and lack of explanation for the delay: The appeal was filed with a delay of 790 days, and the assessee did not provide any affidavit or petition explaining the delay. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the absence of a condonation petition. 5. Additions made for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and non-cooperation of the assessee: For the Assessment Year 2013-14, the AO made additions totaling Rs. 25,52,18,259/- based on unexplained cash credits, non-genuine purchases, and disallowed sale transactions. The CIT(A) confirmed most of these additions. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide supporting documents, the Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal. Conclusion: Both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed due to non-appearance, lack of representation, failure to prove the necessary details for the additions, and the significant delay in filing the appeal without any explanation.
|
