MANISHKUMAR AND CO,BOTAD BHAVNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 463/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 February 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that persistent non-compliance and failure to prosecute the appeals indicated the assessee's lack of interest. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine for non-prosecution and non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) that confirmed penalties and reassessment orders. The appeals faced significant delays and defects, and the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings or rectify the issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to persistent non-compliance and failure to rectify defects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 25/02/2025

�ी टी.आर. से��ल कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद� के सम�। ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos.462/Ahd/2024 & 463/Ahd/2024 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 Manishkumar and Co. The Dy.CIT बनाम/ Salangpur Road Botad Circle-2 v/s. Bhavnagar – 364 710 Bhavnagar (Gujarat) �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AALFM 2561 P (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�� यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : -None- Revenue by : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:

These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)] for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively.

2.

In the appeal is against the order of the CIT(A), dated 12/01/2024, which confirmed the penalty levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO had imposed a penalty of Rs.6,36,011/- on the grounds of concealment of income and furnishing of & 463/Ahd/2024 Manishkumar and Co. vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13

2 inaccurate particulars. The assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified and sought relief before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal.

Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 07/12/2018, wherein the total income was reassessed at Rs.2,43,05,590/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,06,07,310/-. The AO made additions on account of non-inclusion of interest income of Rs.34,52,508/- and discrepancy in contract receipts amounting to Rs.2,45,772/-. The assessee challenged the validity of reopening, and the additions made before the CIT(A), who, vide order dated 18/12/2023, upheld the reassessment proceedings as well as the additions made by the AO.

4.

Upon filing of these appeals, the Registry observed certain defects in both the cases. There was a delay of 27 days in filing and a delay of 2 days in ITA No.462/Ahd/2024. Further, the date of service/communication of the CIT(A)’s order was not mentioned in Column No. 3(c) of Form 36, and the uploaded copy of the AO’s order was not legible. The Registry issued notices to the assessee to rectify these defects. Despite the reminders, the assessee failed to comply.

5.

The appeals were listed for hearing on multiple occasions, and despite the matter being fixed for the tenth (10th) hearing, neither the assessee nor its Authorized Representative appeared before us. No adjournment application was filed, nor was any effort made to rectify the defects pointed out by the Registry.

& 463/Ahd/2024 Manishkumar and Co. vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13

3 6. Considering the persistent non-compliance and the failure to prosecute the appeals effectively, we find that the assessee is not interested in pursuing these appeals. It is settled principle that an appeal does not merely mean filing of a memo but requires effective pursuit, we hold that the present appeals deserve to be dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance.

7.

Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. However, the assessee is at liberty to file a restoration application explaining the reasonable cause for non-compliance, if so advised, in accordance with the law.

8.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. pronounced in the Open Court on 25th February, 2025 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →