MR. BALRAM SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(1), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6292/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 January 2026AY 2012-133 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 AO and the First Appellate Authority found the assessee's explanations regarding the creditworthiness of lenders and details of creditors unsatisfactory. The appeal was subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution due to the assessee's non-appearance and unserved notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised Return of Income declaring Rs. 7,47,690 for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny, but the assessee failed to respond to notices. The AO found discrepancies in unsecured loans and cash deposits, leading to an assessment of total income at Rs. 1,41,03,330.

What were the issues?

The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant's non-appearance and the inability to serve notices on the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.AR
Hearing: 22/01/2026Pronounced: 22/01/2026

PER JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT :

1.

By this appeal, appellant assessee is challenging the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nashik (‘CIT(A)’ for short) thereby confirming the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short) under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). The appeal relates to A.Y.2012-13.

2.

The brief facts are that the assessee is the proprietor of BS Enterprises. Assessee filed his original Return of Income (RoI) on 30.09.2012 which was revised on 01.10.2012 by declaring total income of Rs. 7,47,690/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued alongwith questionnaire. The appellant did not attend or respond to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 02.07.2014 and 03.11.2014. Subsequently, the assessee produced certain details for A.Y.2012-13 such as Return of

3.

The Assessing Officer found that during the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have received an amount to the tune of Rs.16,45,60,398/- and after debiting all the expenses had arrived at the net profit of Rs.8,45,690/-. The Assessing Officer has found that although the appellant produced certain details of the sundry creditors and all the unsecured loans, purchases and sales etc., however, the appellant failed to produce the addresses and other details about the creditors. The appellant only submitted certain self-made confirmations. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the unsecured loans of Rs.87,05,640/- and the cash deposited to the tune of Rs.46,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.03.2015 assessed the total income of Rs.1,41,03,330/-.

4.

In appeal, the First Appellate Authority has also found that the explanation offered by the appellant was not satisfactory to establish the creditworthiness of the lenders and dismissed the appeal.

5.

When this appeal was called out, none appeared for the appellant. The record discloses that on the previous date i.e. on 26.11.2025 also there was no appearance. Two notices issued have been returned back unserved on 24.10.2025 and 13.12.2025. The endorsement on the registered envelop shows that the ‘appellant has left’.

6.

In that view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22/01/2026.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →