MAHENDRA KUMAR SANADHYA,C SCHEME vs. ITO WD 6(2), JPR, JAIPUR

PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 27.05.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 13/12/2017, making an addition of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- on account of alleged long term capital gains.

3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide order dated 27/05/2023, dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual filed its return of income at Rs. 16,27,540/- vide dated: 02.05.2016. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and various statutory notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act vide assessment order. For non-compliance penalty notice was also issued, still there was no response from the side of the assessee. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 144 of the Act by adding back the amount of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,32,42,337/-. The assessee, being aggrieved with this order of the AO, preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there was absolutely non-compliance before him also, as pointed out in his order vide para 5.2 of the appeal order. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us with a delay of 506 Days. The assessee was conveyed about this delay in filing of appeal before us by the office of the Assistant Registrar. In response to the same, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit signed on the 16th Day of December 2024. But the same was not found to be in order as the affidavit filed by the assessee was not duly attested by the Notary. This deficiency duly communicated to the assessee and seeks time to remove the same but never cured and continuously taking adjournment on the ground of removing the defect pointed out by the bench. The case of the assessee was fixed on various dates before the bench and ample time was given to remove this defect, but there is always an adjournment application from the side of the assessee for various reasons without properly explaining the reasons for seeking adjournments. Ultimately, as the assessee was not able to fulfil the condition for condonation of delay, ultimately case was declared as heard with condoning the delay as none appeared on behalf the assessee and adjournment application is also rejected.

3 In absence of the assessee, we duly heard the arguments of the Ld. DR. Considering the arguments of the Ld. DR against the condonation of delay, past track record of the assessee before the authorities below and non-removal of deficiency before us, we deem it fit to dismiss the appeal of the assessee as a non-serious attempt by the assessee and a wastage of Tribunal’s time. In the result, without discussing the merits of the case, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee being a belated one without having any valid reason for hearing before us.

Order is pronounced in the open court on the 20thDayof February2025.