Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, failed to file income tax returns for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13. The Assessing Officer reopened assessments under Section 147 and made additions for cash deposits, capital gains, and commodity transactions due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to file returns and respond to notices at all stages, including before the Tribunal, despite multiple opportunities and adjournments. No material was produced to support the grounds of appeal, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders are sustainable when the assessee failed to cooperate with the proceedings and provide necessary documentation.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 139, 148, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar
: 873 to 875/Ahd/2023 Asst. Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Navnitbhai Dhanjibhai Income Tax Officer Patel Ward-3(3)(5) 41, Applewoodvilas, Vs (Previously Near Surabhitvatika, Ward-3(3)(8)), Near Shantipura Cross Ahmedabad Roads, Sardar Patel Ring Road, Shela, (Respondent) Ahmedabad-380058 PAN: AXUPP9996M (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Adjournment Application filed Revenue Represented: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 01-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 03-04-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
These three appeals are filed by the Assessee as against three separate appellate orders all dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the exparte reassessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to 875/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 Page No 2 Navnitbhai Dhanjibhai Patel VS. ITO relating to the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 respectively. Since common issues are involved in the above appeals, for the sake of convenience, the same are disposed of by this common order. is taken as the lead case. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual has not filed the Return of Income u/s. 139 of the Act for the Asst. Year 2010-11. The assessee made cash deposits in various bank accounts and sold immovable property to the tune of Rs.2.57 crores along with other co-owners and also made transactions in commodity exchange. Since the assessee has not filed the Return of Income, assessments were reopened for escapement of income by issuing notice u/s. 148 dated 29-03-2017. The assessee failed to respond to the 148 notice. Therefore 142(1) notices dated 21-07-2017, 18- 08-2017 and 06-09-2017 were served on the assessee but failed to make any response. Therefore a final show cause notice dated 27- 10-2017 was issued. Again the assessee failed to response, thereby Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposit of Rs.34,05,742/-; long term capital gain of Rs.7,57,142/- and commodity transaction at Rs.69,27,880/- as the income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon.
Aggrieved against the exparte assessment orders, appeals were filed before Ld. CIT(A) within prescribed time by the assessee. The Appellate Commissioner issued notices of hearing on 15-01-2021, 17-08-2021, 12-07-2023, 19-10-2023 to the registered email id, but there was neither response nor seeking adjournment of the to 875/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 Page No 3 Navnitbhai Dhanjibhai Patel VS. ITO hearing or filing any details. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed appeals before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the AO’s addition of Rs.34,05,742/- being the credit entries including cash deposit to ICICI Bank and Union Bank of India, such addition is requested to be deleted.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the AO’s addition of Rs.7,57,142/- being the amount of sale proceeds of immovable property treating the same as undisclosed capital receipt, such addition is requested to be deleted.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the AO’s addition of Rs.27,65,000/- being the credit entries in the ledger of Broker Kaynet Commodities Pvt. Ltd. considering the same as unexplained expenditure, such addition is requested to be deleted.
5. The appeals were listed for hearing from 22-02-2024 till 01-04- 2025 on twelve occasions. First few occasions, Ld. Counsel sought for adjournment, since his mother was hospitalized on account of fracture in leg. On medical grounds adjournments were granted. From 14-11-2024, Ld. Counsel sought adjournments that details of commodity transactions with M/s. Kaynet Commodities Pvt. Ltd. are to be collected, hence request for time. Again the cases were adjourned to 19-12-2024, same request was sought for adjournment, hence the case adjourned to 10-10-2024, 19-10- 2024, 25-02-2025 and finally 01-04-2025 today. Even today, Ld. Counsel sought for adjournment that details have to be collected relating to the commodity transactions. The request of adjournment was refused and the matter was passed over. After calling work is over and when the appeals were taken for hearing again, Ld. Representative disappeared from the virtual hearing and not to 875/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 Page No 4 Navnitbhai Dhanjibhai Patel VS. ITO represented, so again the cases were passed over but no response from the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore with the assistance of Ld. Sr. D.R., the above appeals are disposed.
6. We have perused the materials available on record, except the exparte assessment order, there is no other material filed before any of the Authorities. The assessee has neither filed original Return of Income u/s. 139 nor in response to the notices duly served u/s. 148 on the assessee. When various 142(1) notices issued to the assessee, the assessee failed to respond to the same but as against exparte assessment orders filed appeal within stipulated 30 days’ time.
6.1. Similarly before Ld. CIT(A), when hearing notices were issued, the assessee failed to appear which resulted in passing exparte appellate orders. Again the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal within the statutory period of limitation. Even before this Tribunal, the assessee is seeking adjournments for one or other reason only. But even after granting twelve hearings, the assessee failed to file any documentary evidence in support of its claim and grounds of appeal
. This clearly shows that the assessee is not interested and pursuing the above appeals with relevant and required details. Since both the assessee and his Authorized Representative failed to file any details, in spite of ample opportunities given to them. Further there is no material before us to grant any relief to the assessee, specially when the assessee has not even filed either regular Return of Income nor in response to 148 notice. Therefore the additions made by the Assessing Officer to 875/Ahd/2023 A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 Page No 5. Navnitbhai Dhanjibhai Patel VS. ITO requires to be confirmed. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are devoid of merits and the same liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03-04-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 03/04/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद