MR. MELVIN MARQUES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(2)(2), , MUMBAI
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.18,06,875/- on account of undisclosed income. The assessee claimed to have been out of India during the assessment proceedings and only learned of the addition when their bank account was frozen. The first appeal was filed after a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reason for delay was not supported by documentary evidence, and the delay was substantial. However, considering the assessee was out of India, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee has sufficient cause for the delay in filing the first appeal and whether the delay should be condoned.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.10.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 24.12.2018 under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, made the addition of Rs.18,06,875/- on account of undisclosed source of income and added the same in the total income
2 ITA No.4741/M/2023 Shri Melvin Margues
of the Assessee, in the absence of any explanation from the Assessee qua source of such foreign remittance.
The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and lodged the claim that he was not in India during the period of the assessment proceedings as well as during the assessment proceedings and till March 2022, however once he visited Bank of India, Dadar West Branch in April 2022, then only came to know that his bank account has been freezed by the Revenue Department and therefore thereafter only collected the assessment order personally from the Department on 29.06.2022 and subsequently on dated 15.07.2022 filed the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner.
We have considered the claim of the assessee, however, realized that reason given by the assessee before the Ld. Commissioner, was not supported by any documentary evidences therefore the Ld. Commissioner, by holding that there was no sufficient reason or cause for the Assessee to file the appeal delayed, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee due to delay of 1269 days in filing the first appeal and therefore the Assessee do not deserve any leniency, however, considering the fact specifically to the effect that the assessee was not in India during the relevant period, which resulted into delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore for the just decision of the case and for the ends of substantial justice, we are inclined to afford an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim qua delay in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner by submitting the relevant documents and therefore we are remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim qua delay in filing the first appeal and in case
3 ITA No.4741/M/2023 Shri Melvin Margues
the assessee would be able to succeed in demonstrating/substantiating the reason of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, then the Ld. Commissioner shall decide the appeal on merits.
We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential and required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Hence, the case is remanded accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.06.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
