Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, operating a petrol pump, did not file a regular return for AY 2017-18. After a notice u/s 142(1), a return was filed, but the AO completed assessment u/s 144, disallowing 50% of expenditure and adding unexplained cash deposits (SBNs) during demonetization. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, leading to this appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted a 520-day delay in filing the appeal. The explanation of 'wrong advice from a tax consultant,' lacking specific details, was deemed not bona fide or genuine. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 520 days in filing the appeal should be condoned based on an unsubstantiated explanation of wrong advice from a tax consultant.
Sections Cited
142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gretta Joffy .......... Appellant Vadukkoot Kooriyal House, Elavally Chittattukara, Thrissur 680511 [PAN: AVWPG3387P] vs. ITO, Ward -1 & TPS, Guruvayoor .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Preetha Shenoy, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29.12.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual carrying on the business of running petrol pump under the name and style of “Koorial Fuels”. No regular return of income for AY 2017- 18 was filed by the appellant. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 15.01.2018 calling upon the appellant to file the return of income. In response to the notice u/s. 142(1), the appellant filed return of income disclosing Gretta Joffy income of Rs. 4,38,030/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Guruvayoor (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 18.11.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 27,77,080/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed 50% of the expenditure claimed from the business by holding that the profit declared is lower compared to the industrial standards. The AO also made addition of Rs. 10,56,000/- being the cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBN) during the demonetisation period for the failure of the appellant to explain the cash deposits.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 520 days. The appellant had filed application for condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice of the Tax Consultant and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel v. ITO [2013] 29 taxmann.com 389. Thus he prayed that the delay may be condoned.
I have carefully perused the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The only explanation offered by the Gretta Joffy appellant for the delay in filing the appeal is that the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice of the consultant. The affidavit of bereft of details such as name of the Consultant and what wrong advice was given by him, etc. Therefore, the explanation offered is not bona fide and genuine. Therefore, in my considered opinion it is not a fit case to condone the delay of 520 days. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine on the grounds of delay.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2025.