SANJAY KUMAR YADAV,DELHI vs. CIT APPEAL, DELHI

The assessee is an individual, proprietor of JMJ Enterprises having business of construction and maintenance of power transmission and telecommunication lines and trading in jewellery during the financial year under consideration. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2022-23 on 26th September, 2022 declaring the income at Rs.16,16,535/-. Upon selection of the case for complete scrutiny for genuineness of transactions uploaded through VRU, identity of the parties related with transactions and whether the assessee has shown correct income in the ITR, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 02.06.2023 was issued. On very many occasions, though notices were issued to the assessee, the assessee was never represented and final assessment was made in the hands of the assessee u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act with the following counts:- S.No. Details Amount 1. Returned income 14,41,000/- 2. Unaccounted Bogus Purchases 7,89,04,506 3. Difference in Sundry debtors 3,16,24,666/- 4. Difference in declaration of sales 3,62,275/- 5. Difference in Bank balances 3,97,640/- 6. Disallowed the PF payment 4,175/- 7. Unexplained expenditure 27,28,128/- 8. Difference in payment to sundry creditors 6,06,77,465/- 9. Unexplained Unsecured loans from others 46,42,000/- 10. Unexplained Advances recoverable in cash or in 21,42,000/- kind or for value to be received 11. Unexplained Deposits, loans and advances to 38,000/- corporate and others 12. Assessed Income 182961855/- 3. In appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions. In fact, before the Ld.CIT(A) notices galore were sent to the assessee on almost all the occasions, the assessee made requests for adjournment. Having no other alternative, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded with the matter and finalized the same upon confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO. It is relevant to mention that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases to the tune of Rs.7,89,04,506/- either before the Ld. AO or before the first appellate authority. Before us, the Ld. counsel appearing for the assessee Mr.Sumit Kumar Goenka failed to submit any cogent reason for non-representation of the assessee before the authorities below or non-supply of cogent document in support of the transaction in question made by the assessee. It is evident that the conduct of the assessee before the authorities below is nothing, but, a willful negligence or an attempt to buy time before the authorities below, particularly, before the Ld. CIT(A) by making a series of applications for adjournment. From the conduct of the assessee, it appears that those adjournment applications were also not having any force. Neither cogent reason could have been shown by the assessee in preferring adjournment before the Ld.CIT(A). Keeping the first appellate authority in such a hanging position when he is having a number of files to decide, we find the assessee must pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- particularly for keeping the matter pending unnecessarily before the first appellate authority by dilatory tactics. The said cost is to be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within ten days from the date of pronouncement of this order. However, having regard to the fact that the case of the assessee could not be adjudicated properly on merit in the absence of any proper assistance 3 rendered by the assessee, we would like to dispose of this appeal by remitting the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), who, in turn, will seek for a remand report from the Ld. AO and decide the issue strictly in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of nine months of this order. In the event it is found that the assessee is not cooperating with the first appellate authority, the said authority would be at liberty to proceed and finalise the appeal strictly in accordance with the law.