9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out adverting to the merits of the case dismiss appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. Assessee appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE JUDGES RAVISH SOOD, MEMBER (J) For the Appellant : S.R. Rao, Advocate For the Respondents : Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER RAVISH SOOD, MEMBER (J) 1. The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 03.08.2023 and 29.03.2023, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 16.12.2018 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. As the issues involved in the captioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. I shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 350/RPR/2023 for assessment year 2013-14, wherein the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: 1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,868/- made by the AO as unexplained cash credit in the bank account of the appellant. I have perused the AO's order, ground of appeal and other details available on record. It is noted that' the appellant did not comply with any of the notices of the AO during the impugned assessment proceedings. In the appellate proceedings as well, he did not respond to any of the notices. 9.2 Also, during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not brought any tangible material or evidence on record which could have satisfactorily explained the source of deposits in his bank account. As mentioned above, during the instant appeal proceedings, a number of notices u/s 250 of the I T Act were issued to the appellant asking the appellant to file his reply/submission in support of the grounds of appeal raised by him. However, the appellant did not file any reply in response of the notices issued. 9.3 The AO, in his order, has mentioned that in response to the issuance of notice u/s 148 on 20.02.2018, no return of income was ever filed. Subsequently, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on 28.09.2018 and 02.11.2018 which also remained uncompiled. Finally, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me and later on he filed online Return of Income on 27/12/2018 declaring total income at Rs. 11,26,110/- under presumptive scheme of taxation and paid Rs. 187,178/- as per advise received. 4. However, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order anti- dating 16/12/2018, because the portal would not have permitted filing the return online once the assessment order was passed. Further as per notings on the assessment order, it was issued on 29/12/2018 without any reasons for keeping the assessment order lying with him till such date though it was passed 13 days ago. 5. The Ld. Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s.143(2) and passed assessment order u/s.144 assessing total income at Rs. 34,09,870/- u/s 69A of the Act without considering the facts in their entirety. 6. That aggrieved by the assessment order, applicant filed appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 7. The Appellant has requested for supply of reasons recorded u/s.148(2), etc. but the same were not supplied. Appellant unsuccessfully visited ld. Assessing Officer's office several times. 8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has averr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formed about the ongoing assessment proceedings, had not only failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the said proceedings. Also, the assessee had failed to file any reply to the notices that were served on him during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the A.O., in the absence of any return of income and also any explanation forthcoming about the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, who had chosen to lie low and neither participate in the assessment proceedings nor furnish any reply to the notices that were issued to him, thus, was constrained to treat the cash deposits of Rs. 34,09,870/-(supra) as the assessee's unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, and frame the best judgment assessment vide his order u/ss.144/147 of the Act dated 16.12.2018. 11. Before the CIT(Appeals), the conduct of the assessee was no better than that he had adopted during the assessment proceedings. Although the CIT(Appeals) afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee 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 appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the present appeals r.w the conduct of the assessee appellant before the AO and the CIT(Appeals), I would mince no words in observing that the request of the assessee for condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal does not merit acceptance. In fact, if I condone the delay involved in the present case where the assessee had not even participated in the proceedings either before the A.O or CIT(Appeals), then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for the times to come. I am of a strong conviction that as the assessee had on account of his callous conduct delayed the filing of the present appeal by a period of 39 days, therefore, the application filed by him seeking condonation of the same does not merit acceptance and is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 13. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nordinate delay. It was held as under: A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach, but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. In the present case, the delay of 39 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee. In fact, the conduct of the assessee before the A.O and the CIT(Appeals) clearly evidences his disregard for the process of law, which, I find, he had carried forward before me by preferring the appeal beyond a period of 39 days after the lapse of the stipulated time period. 16. Also, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 1961:INSC:213 : AIR (1962) 361 (SC) that seeker of justice must come with 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
