Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte. The revenue contended that no return was filed originally and the assessee had undisclosed assets.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative sought adjournments and claimed lack of documents, which were considered as delay tactics. The assessee had also sought adjournments before the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's repeated delays and lack of preparedness, and whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order should be confirmed.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Shri Vinay Goenka, A.R. Department represented by Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR Date of hearing 05/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 05/01/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Ranchi/10828/2019-20 dated 24/10/2024 for the A.Y. 2013-14.
Shri Vinay Goenka, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri R.C. Marndi, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.
At the time of hearing, the ld. AR Shri Vinay Goenka, FCA submitted that he needs time as the papers in regard to appeal are with the assessee and he does not have any document. It was pointed out to the ld. AR that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex parte. It was then submitted by the ld. AR that this is a case where an earlier assessment order under Section 143(3) has been passed.
Sanjivini Sahu Vs ITO 4. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that no return had been filed originally and this is a case of reopening. The assessee had not disclosed any income in its returns. In the assessee's balance sheet, the assessee had shown assets of only ₹ 11.00 lacs while actually the assets were of nearly ₹ 54.00 lacs. It was a submission that the difference has been brought to tax by the Assessing Officer.
The ld. AR, then submitted that he needs one day time to prepare for arguments. The facts clearly shows that the assessee is attempting to derail the hearing process. A perusal of the assessment order in the present case clearly shows that Shri Vinay Goenka himself has appeared in the assessment proceedings. Now to turn down and say that he does not have the file or he does not know the facts is nothing but delay tactics. The facts clearly show that the number of opportunities had been given by the ld. CIT(A) before disposing the appeal. The assessee has sought adjournment on two occasions before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, it no more lies with the assessee to submit that the notices have not been served on the assessee. The appeal has been filed before the Tribunal on 13/02/2025. The Vakalatnama of ld. AR is also of 13/02/2025. It is after nearly 11 months his appeal has been brought up for hearing and still the ld. Authorised Representative submits that he does not have any paper, obviously this clearly shows the lack sided attitude of the assessee. This being so, as no reasonable cause has been shown for non-representation before the ld. CIT(A), the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed and the order of the ld. CIT(A) stands confirmed.