Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 718 days and had numerous defects including an unsigned Form 36, missing pages, and incorrect respondent particulars. The assessee did not file a condonation application or appear for the hearing.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation and not maintainable due to several procedural defects and non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is maintainable in law given the significant delay, procedural defects, and non-appearance of the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 68, 234A, 234B, 234C, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:
147-Resorting to the provisions of section 147 Expln :- The learned ITO was not justified in resorting to the provisions of section 147 of the Act The said resort to the provisions of section 147 and also the order passed consequent thereto are illegal and invalid 143(3)- Disallowance of Deductions while computing capital gains Disallowance of Deductions while computing capital gains Disallowance of Deductions while computing capital gains on the transfer of the property on the transfer of the property Expln:- The learned ITO was not justified in disallowing the The learned ITO was not justified in disallowing the The learned ITO was not justified in disallowing the deduction of the follow deduction of the following amounts while computing capital gains ing amounts while computing capital gains on the transfer of the property: i Indexed cost of bank mortgage on the transfer of the property: i Indexed cost of bank mortgage on the transfer of the property: i Indexed cost of bank mortgage repayment of Rs 15880400 ii Indexed cost of other loans of Rs repayment of Rs 15880400 ii Indexed cost of other loans of Rs repayment of Rs 15880400 ii Indexed cost of other loans of Rs 5233333 iii Indexed cost of security deposit of Rs 1619600 & 5233333 iii Indexed cost of security deposit of Rs 1619600 & 5233333 iii Indexed cost of security deposit of Rs 1619600 & Improvement cost Rs. 8,11, Improvement cost Rs. 8,11,553/- totalling Rs. 2,35,44,886/ 2,35,44,886/- iv Transfer expenses Rs 700000 Transfer expenses Rs 700000 143(3)- failed to appreciate that the above amounts were not the failed to appreciate that the above amounts were not the failed to appreciate that the above amounts were not the income of the appellant at all income of the appellant at all Expln:- The learned ITO has failed to appreciate that the above The learned ITO has failed to appreciate that the above The learned ITO has failed to appreciate that the above amounts were not the income of amounts were not the income of the appellant at all 143(3)- not allowing the set off of the loans not allowing the set off of the loans Expln:- The learned ITO was not justified in not allowing the set off The learned ITO was not justified in not allowing the set off The learned ITO was not justified in not allowing the set off of the loans in respect of the amounts advanced to the company of the loans in respect of the amounts advanced to the company of the loans in respect of the amounts advanced to the company Raja Rani Travels P Ltd. against the capital gains compu Raja Rani Travels P Ltd. against the capital gains compu Raja Rani Travels P Ltd. against the capital gains computed on the transfer of the property transfer of the property 143(3)- The Learned ITO has added an amount of Rs. 7,69,000/ The Learned ITO has added an amount of Rs. 7,69,000/ The Learned ITO has added an amount of Rs. 7,69,000/- considering them as cash deposits for business purpose treating it considering them as cash deposits for business purpose treating it considering them as cash deposits for business purpose treating it as unexplained cash credit. as unexplained cash credit. Expln:- The learned ITO was not justified in adding an amount o The learned ITO was not justified in adding an amount of The learned ITO was not justified in adding an amount o Rs. 7,69,000/ Rs. 7,69,000/- being cash deposits for business purpose treating it being cash deposits for business purpose treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 234A, 234B, 234C 234A, 234B, 234C- Levy of Interest Expln:- The learned ITO was not justified in levying interests us The learned ITO was not justified in levying interests us The learned ITO was not justified in levying interests us 234A 234B and 234C The appella 234A 234B and 234C The appellant denies his liability in nt denies his liability in respect of the the same.
At the threshold, we notice that the Registry has pointed out a At the threshold, we notice that the Registry has pointed out a At the threshold, we notice that the Registry has pointed out a delay of 718 days in filing the present appeal. It is further noted delay of 718 days in filing the present appeal. It is further noted delay of 718 days in filing the present appeal. It is further noted that the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of that the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of that the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay, nor has any supporting affidavit been placed on record. In nor has any supporting affidavit been placed on record. In nor has any supporting affidavit been placed on record. In addition thereto, the Form No. 36 as filed is neither duly signed by addition thereto, the Form No. 36 as filed is neither duly signed by addition thereto, the Form No. 36 as filed is neither duly signed by the authorized person nor accompanied by properly signed grounds the authorized person nor accompanied by properly signed grounds the authorized person nor accompanied by properly signed grounds of appeal; rather, what has been uploaded is only a draft copy. The of appeal; rather, what has been uploaded is only a draft copy of appeal; rather, what has been uploaded is only a draft copy Registry, while scrutinizing the papers, has specifically pointed out Registry, while scrutinizing the papers, has specifically pointed out Registry, while scrutinizing the papers, has specifically pointed out the following defects: the following defects:
Appeal is time-barred by 718 days. barred by 718 days.
2. Name/designation Name/designation Name/designation not not not correctly correctly correctly filled filled filled in in in respondent’s respondent’s respondent’s particulars.
3. Uploaded Form 36 is incomplete/missing pages. Uploaded Form 36 is incomplete/missing pages. Uploaded Form 36 is incomplete/missing pages. 4. Copy of the assessment order not filed. he assessment order not filed. 5. Form 36 and grounds of appeal
not signed by the appellant. Form 36 and grounds of appeal not signed by the appellant. Form 36 and grounds of appeal not signed by the appellant.
6. Relevant section and sub Relevant section and sub-section not properly filled in. section not properly filled in.
Despite such defects being specifically notified to the assessee, 3. Despite such defects being specifically notified to the assessee, 3. Despite such defects being specifically notified to the assessee, no steps were taken to cure the same. Th no steps were taken to cure the same. The assessee was also duly e assessee was also duly intimated of the hearing fixed on 07.08.2025 by way of registered intimated of the hearing fixed on 07.08.2025 by way of registered intimated of the hearing fixed on 07.08.2025 by way of registered post, which was duly served. However, even on the said date, there post, which was duly served. However, even on the said date, there post, which was duly served. However, even on the said date, there was neither appearance nor any request for adjournment on behalf was neither appearance nor any request for adjournment on behalf was neither appearance nor any request for adjournment on behalf of the assessee. It is also perti of the assessee. It is also pertinent to record that even the earlier nent to record that even the earlier notice issued by the Registry was not complied with. notice issued by the Registry was not complied with. notice issued by the Registry was not complied with.
In these circumstances, we have no option but to proceed ex 4. In these circumstances, we have no option but to proceed ex 4. In these circumstances, we have no option but to proceed ex parte qua the assessee. Having regard to the fact that the appeal is parte qua the assessee. Having regard to the fact that the appeal is parte qua the assessee. Having regard to the fact that the appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation an hopelessly barred by limitation and no application for condonation d no application for condonation has been filed, and further considering that the very Form No. 36 has been filed, and further considering that the very Form No. 36 has been filed, and further considering that the very Form No. 36 placed on record is defective and unsigned, we are constrained to placed on record is defective and unsigned, we are constrained to placed on record is defective and unsigned, we are constrained to hold that the appeal is not maintainable in law. hold that the appeal is not maintainable in law.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. However, it is limine. However, it is clarified that this dismissal shall not preclude the assessee from clarified that this dismissal shall not preclude the assessee from clarified that this dismissal shall not preclude the assessee from availing any remedy as may be available under law, provided the availing any remedy as may be available under law, provided the availing any remedy as may be available under law, provided the defects as pointed out are duly rectified and the same is pursued in defects as pointed out are duly rectified and the same is pursued in defects as pointed out are duly rectified and the same is pursued in accordance with law. accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected.