9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short Ld. CIT(A) ), ADDL/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai vide order dated 04.01.2024 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Condonation of Delay: The appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was unintentional and caused by genuine hardships. The appellant, being unaware of the technicalities and requirements under tax law, relied on an agent to manage financial and tax-related matters, including the disputed bank account. Due to misleading guidance and lack of awareness, the appellant could not comply with the timelines for filing the appeal. It is respectfully 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the assessing officer, it was observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had made cash deposits of ₹12 lakhs in his savings bank account held with Union Bank of India. The assessing officer observed that the assessee had not filed return of income for the impugned assessment year. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, various notices of hearing were issued to the assessee, but the assessee did not comply with the same. Accordingly, in view of the deliberate non-compliance by the assessee, the assessing officer, after recording the statement received from the Union Bank in response to notice issued under section 133 (6) of the Act, added a sum of ₹12,07,183/-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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t observed at paragraph no. 18: That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or, for that matter of a judicial or quasi-judicial body. In the absence of the complainant, therefore, the court will be will within its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution '' 12. In 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities and not participated in the assessment or appellate proceedings to come up with its case for the first time before the Tribunal and, as a matter of right seek restoring of the impugned order to the file of the lower authorities for fresh adjudication. 20. Considering the facts mentioned above, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the lower authorities who had rightly made/sustained the addition of 2,47,65,369/-, we uphold the same. 21. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed in terms of our observations above. 14. Again, in the case of Chiranji Lal Bairwa v. ITO in ITA No.404/JP/2023, the ITAT made the following observations, while dealing with a similar issue 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
