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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 303/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to lack of supporting documents for the claimed cardiac issues. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, running a petrol pump, filed a return of income. The AO completed the assessment at a much higher income, estimating profits at 30% of turnover and adding unexplained investment. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Hearing: 05.05.2025

Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sri.Vasu Pokkatharakalam The Income Tax Officer Dinesan, Pokkatharakalam, v. Ward 1 & TPS Chandiroor Alappuzha. Alappuzha – 688 547. PAN : AJHPD3651N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Pronouncement : 13.05.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the CIT(A)”] dated 06.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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

7.

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

Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →