PRIYANKA PRAMOD NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 30(2)(5) MUMBAI, BKC

When the appeal was called for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application for seeking adjournment. Considering the facts of the case and nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose the appeal exparte qua for assessee after hearing the Ld. DR and on basis of material available on record.

We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 of the Act. The Ld. AO made an addition of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account amounting to Rs.10,45,000/- and other credit entries of Rs.3,462/-, aggregating to Rs.10,48,462/-, appearing in the assessee's bank account during F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, treating the same as unexplained. The assessee had neither filed the return of income nor disclosed the true income or paid the taxes due thereon. Despite the issuance of notices under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee failed to comply. Accordingly, the Ld. AO treated the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,48,462/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment ex parte. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1,373 days. However, the assessee failed to establish any sufficient cause for such inordinate delay. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The Ld. DR further submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A) granted the assessee three opportunities of hearing, none of the notices were complied with. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation was justified, and the addition made by the Ld. AO deserves to be sustained.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and the material available on record. We find that the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 of the Act and the first appellate order was also passed ex parte, dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. Even before this Tribunal, despite granting adequate opportunities, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment application was filed. Further, the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation, much less a sufficient cause, for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any satisfactory explanation justifying the inordinate delay, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) is not liable to be condoned, and the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 2688/Mum/2026 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd day of July 2026