Loading judgment…

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD | BharatTax

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

ITA 474/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 October 2025AY 2012-13Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee failed to file income tax returns for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Assessing Officer reopened the case under Section 147 after receiving information about significant cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee failed to provide any explanation or details, leading to an ex-parte assessment and addition of Rs. 53,15,500/- as unexplained income.

Held

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of 304 days without any application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The Tribunal also noted consistent non-compliance by the assessee before all authorities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred and in limine.

Key Issues

Whether the appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 304 days, without any valid reasons or application for condonation, should be entertained by the Tribunal, especially in light of the assessee's consistent non-compliance.

Sections Cited

147, 144, 250, 139, 148, 142(1), 271(1)(c), 69A, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Jainish Parikh, CA

For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Pronounced: 17.10.2025

O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 13.02.2024 passed for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

(A.Y. 2011-12) “1. The assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

2. The Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs. 53,15,500/-. The same deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above the benefit of peak credit should given if addition is confirmed.

&474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 2– 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend, or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.”

(A.Y. 2012-13) “1. The assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

2. The assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in making the addition on account unexplained cash deposit amounting to Rs. 89,57,860/-. The same deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above the benefit of peak credit should given if addition if confirmed.

4. In appeal, the assessee filed the appeal online on 18.12.2018 before the CIT(Appeals). The first notice of hearing under section 250 was issued on 30.12.2020 fixing the hearing on 14.01.2021, followed by subsequent notices dated 26.12.2023 and 03.02.2024. However, despite several opportunities, the assessee did not appear, seek adjournment, or file any written submissions or evidence to contest the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) observed that the burden of proof lies upon the appellant to substantiate his claim and to disprove the findings of the Assessing Officer, but the assessee failed to do so. It was held that the appellant’s continued non- compliance and non-attendance indicated lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on the principle that law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) also adjudicated the matter on merits and upheld the addition of Rs. 53,15,500/- made under section 69A, observing that the assessee neither explained the source of the deposits nor produced any evidence either during assessment or appellate proceedings. The claim made in the statement of facts that the deposits were from known sources remained unsupported by any documentary proof. Therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer was sustained. The ground regarding the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was held to be consequential and mandatory in view of the decision of the Hon’ble &474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 4– Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in Motorola Inc. v. DCIT (96 TTJ 1). The ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was also dismissed as being consequential. The remaining grounds being general in nature were treated as dismissed. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in entirety.

5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We have carefully considered the material available on record. At the outset, it is noted that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 304 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed along with any supporting Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. In the absence of any plausible or reasonable cause being shown by the assessee for such an inordinate delay, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the present appeal. The law in this regard is well settled that sufficient cause for delay must be explained with bona fide reasons, and mere inaction, negligence, or indifference cannot be accepted as justification for condonation. Since no such cause has been demonstrated, the delay of 304 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Further, we note that there has been consistent and deliberate non-compliance by the assessee not only before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but also before us. Despite several opportunities of hearing afforded by this Tribunal, the assessee has failed to cause appearance or to make any effective representation to argue the matter. The record reveals that the assessee has been seeking adjournments on multiple occasions without showing any &474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 5– inclination to pursue the appeal on merits. Such conduct clearly indicates that the assessee is not serious in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no justification to condone the delay of 304 days in filing of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal being time barred is dismissed in limine. Even otherwise, considering the continuous non- compliance and lack of cooperation on part of the assessee before all the authorities including this Tribunal, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal any further.