VIJAY KUMAR TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 23.04.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. On perusal of the case file, we observed that the notice of the present hearing was already issued to the assessee through RPAD and also through e-mail id. stany.ca@gmail.com as per the report
2
Vijay Kumar Tiwari., Mumbai.
of registry. Since the notice was issued on the address given by the assessee and 30 days have already be lapsed from the date of issuance of notice therefore while drawing inference under the General Clauses Act, it s presumed that service has been validly effected upon the assessee on the address mentioned by the assessee. On the other hand Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. We have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte and to decide the same by considering the material placed on record with the assistance of Ld. DR.
3. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that assessee was ex-parte before AO and even before the Ld. CIT(A) as well. Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal of the assessee by passing the detailed order and the same is reproduced herein below:
4.1. I have carefully perused the assessment order, the Grounds of Appeal and the Statement of Facts submitted by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the following opportunities of being heard were granted to the appellant vide notices u/s 250 issued through the ITBA portal which are summarized as follows:
Sr. No.
Date of Notice
Due date of compliance
Remark
1
29.12.2020
13.01.2021
No compliance
2
01.11.2021
16.11.2021
Sought Adjournment
3
14.01.2022
31.01.2022
Sought Adjournment
4
27.06.2023
12.07.2023
Sought Adjournment
3
Vijay Kumar Tiwari., Mumbai.
5
27.09.2024
14.10.2024
Sought Adjournment
6
23.12.2024
07.10.2025
No compliance
7
03.04.2025
11.04.2025
Sought Adjournment
2. The table in the foregoing paragraph clearly demonstrates that the appellant has been allowed several opportunities to explain the contentions of this appeal but to no avail as the appellant has remained not-forthcoming and has not responded on the ITBA portal. Neither any reason whatsoever has yet been received justifying such regular stance of non- cooperation with the appellate proceedings nor any request for adjournment or allowing further time is ever received till the issuance of this order. 4.3. No written submission, any explanation or any material to substantiate the grounds of appeal has ever been sent/submitted by the appellant. After filing of the appeal and submission of ‘Form 35’ nothing has been heard from the appellant’s side. This limits the appellate authority’s ability to consider the material and decide the appeal on merit even when an appellant is not vigilant enough to pursue his appeal and reply to his specific queries, furnish the corroborative documents etc Thus, in the present case no material whatsoever has been brought on record during the appellate proceedings so as the appellate authority could consider the matter on merit. 4.4. The aforesaid mentioned circumstances amply show that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the present appeal and has not furnished any written submission or any documentary evidence in support of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and as communicated to him through notices issued and tabulated previously in this order. The maxim 'vigilantibus non-dormientibus jura subvenunt' i.e. the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their right, is applicable in this case. 4.5. The Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/CHD/2005 for the A.Y 2002- 03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land & Housing Ltd. After following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N Bhattacharjee & Other 118 ITR 461[SC] held
4
Vijay Kumar Tiwari., Mumbai.
that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing the same.
4.6. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of ‘Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. Commissioner of Wealth- tax [1997] 223 ITR 480 (Madhya Pradesh)[11-03-1996] has held that;
“As held in Jamunadas v. CST [1993] 38 MPLJ 462 (MP) and the common order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 303
of 1986—B.R. Phosphate v. CST and Miscellaneous Civil Case
No. 304 of 1986-B.R. Phosphate v. GST by this court on November 6, 1995, this court is not bound to answer the reference. In Jamunadas v. CST [1993] 38 MPLJ 462, it is held as under:
"For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that if the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference. We refuse to answer the reference and also saddle the assessee with the costs of the Department quantified at Rs. 150."
As the assessee has expired and no one has taken the appropriate steps, we dismiss this reference in default and for not taking necessary steps.”
4.7. The appellant in this case has remained non-compliant and uninterested in extending assistance to this appellate charge to arrive at conclusion based on merit of the case in regard to grounds of appeal. No material fact has been brought on record in support of the grounds of appeal or to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer (AO). The appellant in spite of being given ample opportunities during appellate proceedings, failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. I have carefully considered the assessment order and since the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant, I do not find any reason to interfere with the assessment order of the AO. In the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, as well as following
5
Vijay Kumar Tiwari., Mumbai.
the ratio of Hon'ble judicial authorities as cited above, I am inclined to dismiss the appeal due to not pressing by the appellant.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
4. Since the assessee could not substantiated the source of cash deposit of Rs. 1,10,13,000/- during the year under consideration. Therefore, the provisions of Sec. 69A of the Act that were rightly attracted as no documents have been filed to link the money deposited with the business activity.
4. No new facts or circumstances have been placed on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the grounds raised and by the assessee stands dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2025 S (OM PRAKASH KANT)
(SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Mumbai:
Dated: 13/11/2025
KRK, Sr. PS.
6
Vijay Kumar Tiwari., Mumbai.
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.