VASU POKKATHARAKALAM DINESAN,CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of running a petrol pump. The return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 was filed on 31st March, 2018 disclosing total income of Rs.4,87,410. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, Alappuzha (hereinafter “the AO”) vide order dated 26th December, 2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act, at a total income of Rs.37,95,820. While doing so, the AO estimated the profits from the . Sri.Vasu Pokkatharakalam Dinesan. business of running of petrol pump at 30% of the gross total turnover of Rs.17,52,76,578 and also made addition on account of unexplained investment of Rs.2,56,363. Thus, the AO made the total addition of Rs.37,95,820.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, confirmed the action of the AO.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, despite due service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Senior DR.

I heard the learned Senior DR and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal by 446 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, stating therein that the delay had occurred on account of various cardiac issues faced by the appellant. However, the appellant had not filed any supporting documents in the form of certificate from Doctor, proving that from which date he had suffered cardiac disease, etc. Thus, in my considered opinion, the appellant failed to show substantial reason caused for failure of filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and therefore, I reject the condonation petition.

Since, I dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay itself, the issue raised in the appeal, on merits, is not adjudicated.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.