2024 (3) TMI 767 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay filing appeal before tribunal - delay of 161 days involved in preferring the captioned appeal - Delay explained for reason that he was not well conversant with the technology and computer is devoid of any force - HELD THAT - Assessee in his affidavit had deposed that the fact about disposal of the appeal by the CIT(Appeals) was intimated to him by his Chartered Accountant who had accessed his account in the Income Tax Portal. Backed by the aforesaid facts, it is clear beyond doubt that the account of the assessee in the income tax portal was accessible by his Chartered Accountant. I, thus, is of the firm conviction that the reason given by the assessee regarding the delay in filing the appeal is merely an eye wash. Thus it is clear that the delay involved in filing the present appeal is on account of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee and/or his Chartered Accountant. In the present case, the inordinate delay of 161 days cannot be simply condoned based on the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned for the reason that as he was not well conversant with the technology and computer, therefore, he could not access the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC within the stipulated period. As observed by case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, decline to condone the same and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss the captioned appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order u/s 250.
2. Non-consideration of assessee's submissions by CIT(A).
3. Jurisdictional validity of notice u/s 143(2).
4. Confirmation of cash deposit as income.
5. Addition of cash deposit as deemed income u/s 69A.
6. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Summary:

1. Validity of the order u/s 250:
The assessee challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.06.2023, which arose from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2. Non-consideration of assessee's submissions by CIT(A):
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions made on 17.05.2022, despite the CIT(A)'s claim that the appellant did not comply with notices served on 27.01.2021.

3. Jurisdictional validity of notice u/s 143(2):
The assessee argued that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 21.09.2018 was issued by ITO Ward 1(1) Bilaspur, who was not the jurisdictional A.O., making the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 23.12.2019 invalid and liable to be quashed.

4. Confirmation of cash deposit as income:
The A.O observed cash deposits of Rs. 8,58,500/- during the demonetization period, which the assessee claimed were sourced from cash in hand. The A.O rejected this claim due to lack of plausible explanation and held the amount as unexplained money u/s 69A.

5. Addition of cash deposit as deemed income u/s 69A:
The CIT(A) scaled down the addition to Rs. 6,08,500/- based on the SOP issued by the CBDT regarding verification of cash transactions during the demonetization period.

6. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The appeal involved a delay of 161 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not being well acquainted with technology and computers, which was opposed by the Ld. DR. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the assessee's claims and deemed the delay as due to lackadaisical conduct. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, citing the need for strict construction of the law of limitation and the absence of a plausible explanation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation without addressing the merits of the case. The order was pronounced in open court on 13th March 2024.