Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-filer, purchased an immovable property for Rs. 7,00,000/- in FY 2010-11 (AY 2011-12) without providing an explanation for the source of funds. A notice under Section 148 was issued, but no return was filed. The assessment was completed with an addition under Section 69.
Held
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal (2188 days) and the consistent non-compliance by the assessee throughout the appellate proceedings. The assessee failed to represent the case or provide substantiating evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed on grounds of delay and non-compliance, and whether the assessee has made sufficient grounds on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A. Y. 2011-12) Sajida Bano, 57 B Khetdi House Ke Pass, Bai Pass Road, Nahari Ka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur-302 016 PAN No.: AOSPB 4838H ...... Appellant Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur .....Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR Date of hearing : 13/08/2025 Date of pronouncement : 13/10/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M:
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 23.03.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - Sajida Bano vs. ITO
1. The assessee is illiterate to understand Income Tax Rules and provisions and their consequences. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not attend the proceedings inspite of giving repeated opportunities because of the tax consultant of assessee is change his contact no. and office location.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non filer. In this case, the reason u/s. 148 were recorded on the ground that during the year, the assessee has entered into purchase transaction of immovable property amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- during the F.Y 2010-11 relevant for A.Y. 2011-12 relevant for A.Y. 2011-12. In this regard, the assessee was given an opportunity to explain the source of investment in purchase of immovable property of Rs. 7, 00,000/- during the year under consideration but not complied with the same.
3. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2018, in response to the same the assessee had neither filed any return of income nor any written submission. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed after making addition of Rs. 7, 00,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us with the delay of 2188 days.
4. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee along with grounds taken before us. As the matter is time barred in terms of filing of appeal before us. We deem it fit to examine the issue of condonation of delay first and then if required on merits. The assessee in an application submitted as below:-
Sajida Bano vs. ITO “My Tax Consultant is change his contact no and office location and not attend the proceedings before CIT (A). I believe in my tax consultant that he is doing my proceeding work timely. But after received notice by hand I know that my tax consultant is not attending the proceedings before CIT (A). Now I hiring new tax consultant Mr. CA Saiyad Ali for further proceeding. So Plz I requested to you take further action on my appeal.”
We have considered the above submissions of the assessee along with the observations made by the ld. CIT (A). It is observed that there was a delay in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT (A) also. Although the same was condoned by the ld. CIT (A) but as per para 4 (reproduced below) of the ld. CIT (A)’s order, again there was no compliance made by the assessee as reproduced hereunder: Date Event 09.01.2021 First notice u/s 250 was issued for 25.01.2021 via e-mail. 25.01.2021 No written submissions were filed. 11.08.2021 Second notice u/s 250 was issued for 17.08.2021. 17.08.2021 No written submissions were filed. 16.12.2021 Third notice u/s 250 was issued for 27.12.2021. 27.12.2021 No written submissions were filed. 25.02.2022 Fourth notice u/s 250 was issued for 14.03.2022. 14.03.2022 No written submissions were filed. 03.06.2022 Fifth notice u/s 250 was issued for 14.06.2022. 14.06.2022 No written submissions were filed. 04.10.2022 Sixth notice u/s 250 was issued for 19.10.2022. 19.10.2022 No written submissions were filed. 19.02.2023 Final opportunity was provided to the appellant Vide notice u/s 250 was issued 03.03.2023. 03.03.2023 No written submissions were filed.
We have thoroughly observed observations of the authorities below and found that neither the matter was represented nor the relevant submissions were made by the assessee. Even before us there is an abnormal delay of 2188 days, Sajida Bano vs. ITO still none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Moreover, before us also no evidence adduced to substantiate the merits of the grounds taken. In view of the above facts, the bench is concerned that the assessee under consideration neither has intentioned to persuade the matter nor possess the relevant evidence to counter the allegations of the revenue. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 13th day of October 2025.