Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant claimed that additions made by the AO for accommodation entries of LTCG and STCG were incorrect, stating they were proxy transactions for others and that he did not appear before the ITAT, AO, or CIT(A) to provide evidence.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the appellant was non-cooperative, failed to appear for hearings, and did not provide any evidence to support their claims. Additionally, the appeal was filed with a significant delay without a condonation application.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to non-appearance of the appellant, lack of evidence, and significant delay in filing.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
2. The case was posted for hearing by ITAT on 26.5.2025, 23.7.2025, 2.9.25 and finally on 6.10.2025. On none of these dates, there is appearance by appellant or any counsel nor there is any letter of adjournment.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of assessment and Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AO has mentioned in the detailed assessment order that the appellant indulged in manipulations of penny stocks and taken accommodation entries in the form of penny stocks, the appellant utilised for claiming Long Term Capital Gains were mentioned in page 5 of assessment order. The Ld.
2 Krishna Parsuram Kamble AO has mentioned that five opportunities were given to the appellant to explain the accommodation entries taken by him, but there was no proper response and hence the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, an appeal was filed by the appellant before Ld. CIT(A) who gave four opportunities as mentioned in his order, but there was no response and hence the appeal of appellant was dismissed.
Again, the appellant filed an appeal with ITAT with the grounds of appeal mentioned in first para of this order. As mentioned above, the appellant did not appear before the ITAT nor file any evidences for the averments made in Grounds of Appeal. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A).
Perused the material available on record. From the appeal papers filed by appellant, it is seen that the appeal was filed with a delay of 240 days and no application was filed by appellant for condoning delay. Hence, the Bench decides to dismiss the appeal of appellant. The Bench also decided to dismiss the appeal of appellant because the appellant was non-cooperative from the beginning i.e., from Ld. AO to ITAT and did not furnish any details to rebut the contentions of Revenue nor filed any evidences in favour of Grounds of Appeal raised before ITAT. In view of the same, the Bench decided to dismiss the appeal of appellant.
7. The appellant’s appeal is Dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/11/2025.