Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2011-12. The assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and the assessing officer, resulting in ex-parte orders. The appeal was filed with a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as unadmitted due to a substantial delay of over 700 days, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be casual and unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal also noted that on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate the grounds of appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is to be admitted despite a significant delay, and whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of credit entry and unexplained expenditure are sustainable on merit.
Sections Cited
148, 144, 147, 69C, 68, 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 27.04.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the income at Rs. 10,36,940/- as against the returned income of Rs. 1,97,490/-.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the commission income u/s 69C of Rs. 24,450/-
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of Rs. 8,15,000/-.”
2. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice through e- mail as well as RPAD on more than three occasions. One, R.L. Rathi appeared on 30.07.2025 and thereafter none appeared on behalf of assessee. Today, neither anybody attended on behalf of assessee nor any application for adjournment is filed, therefore, we left no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the submission of ld. Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that impugned order was passed ld. CIT(A) on 27.04.2023 and it was communicated to the assessee on the day itself, as mentioned on Form 36 of appeal form. This appeal is filed in June, 2025. The assessee has not explained the delay properly except taking a lame excuse that his Advocate was suffering from viral fever. No supporting evidence in the form of Medical Certificate or medical prescription is filed on record. The delay in filing appeal is more than 700 days and may not be condoned. The assessee has a habitual defaulter in not attending the proceeding before tax authorities. The assessment was completed under section 144 and again before ld. CIT(A), no submission was filed. The assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order.
We have considered the rival submissions of ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and also perused the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that impugned order was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 17.04.2023 and the present appeal is filed only on 22.06.2025. Thus, there is delay of 713 days in filing appeal. The assessee has filed his own affidavit, inter-alia contending that he handed over order of ld. CIT(A) to Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate. On handing over impugned order to Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate suffered a viral fever. The affidavit is not supported by any medical prescription or certificate. In a ordinary course a patient of viral fever recovered within a week or so.
Surprisingly, there is delay of two years, which has not been explained properly. In our view, the assessee is casual in explaining the delay. Thus, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed as unadmitted.
Even on merit, we find that assessing officer made addition on account of credit entry in the bank account, which was not explained despite allowing sufficient opportunity. The assessing officer passed ex-parte order by holding that credit entry is a result of accommodation entry received from Maheshwari KN. The assessing officer also added 3% of credit entry of Rs. 8,15,000/- i.e. Rs. 24,450/- on account of unexplained expenditure. The action of assessing officer was upheld by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) before upholding the action of assessing officer clearly recorded that assessee failed to substantiate the various grounds of appeal. Before us, neither any written submission or any documentary evidence is filed to explain the nature and source of credit entry in the bank. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of lower authorities on merit. Thus, the appeal is also dismissed on merit. In the result, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open Court on 17/11/2025 at the time of hearing.