PURNA CHANDER RAGAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B-SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-
Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, dated 20/02/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under 2
Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated
12/12/2019 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:
1. “The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance whereas the appellant complied with the notice and submitted written submissions.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,77,000/- when all the transactions are recorded in the books of account.
4. Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
5. 2. At the threshold, we may herein observe that the present appeal involves a delay of 33 days. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay involved in the present appeal along with supporting affidavit, dated
13/10/2025. On a perusal of the petition/affidavit, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that though the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order, dated 20/02/2025 dismissing his appeal, but he had gathered about the same only when he was in receipt of a notice under section 250
of the Act, dated 12/05/2025 with respect to his appeal for the immediately succeeding year, i.e., AY 2018-19. The assessee appellant had stated that it was only when after receiving the notice under section 250 of the Act for AY 2018-19, that he had checked the income tax portal that he had gathered that his appeal for the subject year, i.e., AY 2017-18
had been dismissed by the CIT(A) vide an ex-parte order. The assessee
3
4. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both the parties qua the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal. In our view, as the delay involved in filing of the present appeal which is not inordinate had crept in because of bona fide reasons and not on account of mala fide conduct or lackadaisical approach of the assessee appellant, therefore, in all fairness the same merits to be condoned. Our aforesaid view is supported by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025. The Hon'ble
Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of the delay of 114 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench,
4
Purna Chander Ragam vs. ITO had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay of 33 days involved in the filing of the present appeal.
Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 28/11/2017 declaring an income of Rs. 8,79,830/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine and verify “large cash payments made for credit card purchases” during the subject year. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act, dated 17/08/2018 was served on the assessee.
As the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the AO under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 10/01/2019 and 09/05/2019, wherein he was called upon to furnish the details of cash payments made for credit card purchases along with the sources for making the said payments, therefore, the AO was constrained to proceed with and fram the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 144 of the Act, dated 12/12/2019 held the cash payments of Rs. 7,77,000/- made by the assessee towards credit card purchases as having been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.
5
7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success. As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter briefly referred to the facts of the case and finding no infirmity in the view taken by the AO dismissed the appeal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under:
“8. Decision
Since, the assessee has never submitted any details and written submission in-spite of issue of various notices issued by this office, the appeal is decided based on the records available on record and the facts and ground of appeal submitted by the assessee in Form 35. 9. Discussion on non-responsiveness of appellant: -
1. Thus, it may be seen from the table given above that the appellant had been given ample opportunities by way of issuing notices as detailed above but the appellant had neither responded to the notices nor filed any written submission in compliance to such notices issued.
2. It is well settled dictum of law "VIGILENTIBUS, NO DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT which means law will help only those who are vigilant Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim once right she/he must be watchful of his/her rights Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are eligible to the benefits of law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights. In this connection, the various Judicious decision of the Hon'ble Courts may be cited. In the case of Tukojirao Holkar vs CIT (223 ITR 480) Hon'ble M. P. High court held that, "If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or falls in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Courtin the case of New Dewan Oil Mills Vs, CIT reported in (2008) 2961TR495 (P&H) had returned the reference unanswered, since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. In the case of CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461) (Pages 477,478), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appeal does not mean, mere filling of the memo of the appeal but effectively pursuing the same". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 in ITA No. 798 of 2009 held that a negligent appellant should not be given many opportunities just because the quantum of amount involved is high, When the appellant is non appellant did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non-cooperative, it can safely be concluded that the genuineness of his claim. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Whirlpool India Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No. 2006/Del/2011 dated 19.12.20211) has dismissed the appeal for non-attending hearing inferring that the appellant is not effectively pursuing the appeal.
3 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai in the case of M/S Chemipol vs Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 may further be referred to wherein the Hon'ble Court clearly held that every court, judicial Body or Authority, which has a duty to decide a case between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default, Relevant extract of the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai in the said case is extracted below: -
"(1)--
(ii) While not inclined to depart from the view taken by the two High
1958 MP 260, where it was observed that 5 though the act does not give any power of dismissal, it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a No proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal therefore; duty is an inherent power, which every tribunal possesses. This was power approved in Dr. P. Nallia Thampy vs
Shankar (1984(Supp) rence SCC63). In New India Assurance Ns.
Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, it was held that every Court or judicial body or authority, which has duty to decide a lies between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, court or judicial or Quasi-judicial Body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on document, thoroughly discussing the issues involved and the reasons behind rejecting the appellant's contentions.
It seen from record the earlier submission made by the appellant is not supported by any evidence. Since, the assessee has never submitted any details and written submission in-spite of issue of various notices issued by this office, the appeal is decided based on the records available on record and the facts and ground of appeal submitted by the assessee in Form 35. It is seen that the assessee is also asked for personal hearing through virtual mode however there is no such provision available to the JCIT/AddI CIT Appeal through the ITBA systems.
Hence, on merits also, the appellant has no case. The appellant, has the challenged the addition made, without submitting any documentary evidences or counter arguments in support of its claims. Mere claiming that the AO erred in making the additions does not give an edge to the appellant. Keeping in view all the stated facts and discussions, I find no reason in altering the additions made by the AO. In view of responsive nature of the assessee and the above facts, merit of the case, non failure to carry out its responsibility as an appellant, Thus, I firmly
7
Purna Chander Ragam vs. ITO uphold the AO's additions to the appellant's income and dismiss their appeal with unwavering resolve.
For statistical purpose, the appeal is summarily and unceremoniously dismissed, reflecting the appellant's complete lack of accountability and sincerity in the fact of due process.
In the result, appeal is dismissed.”
The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.
We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record.
Smt. A. Sandhya, Advocate, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted, that the assessee had suffered the dismissal of his appeal based on the perverse observations of the CIT(A). Elaborating on her contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee had admittedly in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A) furnished his written submissions, dated 25/01/2024, which the latter had duly taken cognizance and culled out in the body of his order, but thereafter he had wrongly observed that as the assessee had never submitted any details and written submissions inspite of issue of various notices by his office, therefore, the appeal was being decided based on the material available on record in the backdrop of the facts and grounds of appeal submitted by the assessee in Form-35. The Ld. AR to buttress
8
Purna Chander Ragam vs. ITO her aforesaid contention had taken us through the CIT(A) order wherein the CIT(A) had after culling out the written submissions, dated 25/01/2024
that were filed by the assessee had thereafter wrongly observed that the assessee had failed to submit any written submissions in the course of the appellate proceedings. The Ld. AR based on the aforesaid facts submitted that as the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal without considering the written submissions, dated 25/01/2024 (supra) which were reproduced by him in the body of his order, therefore, a serious perversity had crept in his order which had rendered the same as unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Per contra, Sri V. Ravish Bhatt, Learned Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. However, on being confronted with the fact that the CIT(A) after culling out the written submissions, dated 25/01/2024 filed by the assessee before him had thereafter observed that no written submissions were filed in the course of the appellate proceedings, failed to rebut the same.
We have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the Learned Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. 13. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee had in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A) filed his
9
Purna Chander Ragam vs. ITO written submissions, dated 25/01/2024 which thereafter had been reproduced by the said First Appellate Authority in the body of his appellate order. However, we are unable to fathom that despite having referred and culled out the written submissions that were filed by the assessee before him, the First Appellate Authority had on what basis thereafter observed that as no written submissions were filed in the course of the appellate proceedings filed before him, therefore, he is constrained to dispose of the appeal based on the material available on his record. As stated by the Ld. AR and rightly so, the CIT(A) order suffers from self-contradictory observations, wherein he had on the one hand culled out the written submissions of the assessee that were filed before him, but thereafter had wrongly observed that no written submissions were filed in the course of the appellate proceedings before him.
In the totality of the facts involved in the present case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to sustain the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the same based on a reasoned order after duly considering the written submissions available on record. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
10
S d/ -
(मधुसूदन सावͫडया)
(MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA)
लेखासदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (रवीश सूद)
(RAVISH SOOD)
ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER d/- Hyderabad, dated 07.11.2025. OKK/sps
11
आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
Ǔनधा[ǐरती/The Assessee : Purna Chander Ragam, H.No. 10-112, Vinayaka Nagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500042. 2. राजèव/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण /DR,ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गाड[फ़ाईल / Guard file
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary
ITAT, Hyderabad.