RAJIV SURYAKANT RANDHANPURA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In both these cases, the assessee’s books of account have been rejected and the assessee’s working of the gross profit ratio of Rs.0.05% for the Asst. Year 2017-18 and 0.01% for the Asst. Year 2018-19 has been rejected by the assessing officer and the gross profit has been estimated at 0.5% on the total turnover for Asst. year 2017-18 and at 4% of the total turnover for Asst. year 2018-19. In addition to the above, the assessing officer has made an addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- in Asst. Year 2017-18 out of the sundry creditors of the assessee as unexplained cash credits.

In both these years, the assessee has been largely non- compliant at the time of assessment and that appears to be the main reason why the assessing officer felt constrained to reject the books of account and make large additions on estimate. The assessee has thereafter filed appeals against both the assessment orders before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Once again at the time of hearing of the appeals, the assessee has been completely non- compliant and submitted no response despite several opportunities provided by the CIT(A). In view of the non- compliance by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeals.

Before us, the assessee filed the appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) after a significant delay. In the application for condonation of delay filed alongwith the appeal, it is stated by the assessee that the appellate order was sent electronically on the email ID of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant whose services were not being used by the assessee in 2024 and therefore the assessee remained totally unaware of the appellate 2 order. The said order was discovered on 04-02-2026 and thereafter the assessee engaged a new Chartered Accountant and filed the appeal.

Surprisingly in the hearing before us on 10-06-2026, 27-08- 2026 and 26-10-2026 none was present for the assessee. On 27- 08-2026, the Bench had directed that notice of hearing be sent by Speed Post or through the DR. The Ld. D.R. had made an attempt to serve the notice through the ITO, Ward-7(3), Pune. The ITO, Pune reported that an Inspector was sent to the assessee’s address who failed to find any person named Shri Rajiv Suryakant Randhanpura as staying at that address. The notice therefore remains unserved.

This creates a strange circumstance where the assessee emerges for partial compliance before the assessing officer, then remains completely non-compliant before the CIT(A) and then files an appeal before the Tribunal and also files an application for condonation of delay and thereafter again remains non- compliant and unresponsive to notices. We therefore consider it proper to dismiss the assessee’s appeal in limine for non- prosecution.

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed.