Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 17.07.2023 relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
That the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is against judicial decorum and judicial discipline because the judgment having the character of binding nature and not followed by the Learned Assessing Officer.
The learned Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the facts and documents produced by assessee as the assessee represent the case by himself without appointing any tax professional. Petty cash book for (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hiren Avinash Modi vs. The ITO - 2– Ankleshwar, audited extracts of books of accounts, income and cash deposit certificate given by the employer was overlooked by the learned Assessing Officer.
The learned Assessing Officer had noted in the order that he sent a letter to M/s. Creasakthi SCM Limited and said that no response was received but the assessing officer did not give the detail of address where he sent the confirmation letter.
In a similar case of another employee of the company the judgement given by officer of ITO Delhi Ward 29(5), New Delhi order No. 517 dated 16- 11-2017, is in the favor of assessee. Copy of such order was submitted to the learned Assessing Officer but he overlooked that order also.
5. The Grounds of Appeal
are taken without prejudice to one another and appellant craves, leave, to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the appellate authority.
3. The assessee is an individual and having income from salary and other sources during the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, on verification of the Bank Statement of the assessee for F.Y. 2009-10, it is noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 14,22,000/- in his saving account. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 17.11.2017. In response to the show cause the assessee submitted his reply on 01.12.2017 along with cash book, balance sheet, P&L Account and ledger account of M/s. Creasakthi SCM Ltd., Chennai. The assessee also submitted that the cash deposits were made in respect of business transactions for Ankleshwar Branch of M/s. Creasakthi SCM Ltd. The Assessing Officer issued fresh notice to the assessee on his new address but the assessee did not response to his fresh notice. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had rejected the contention of the assessee and added Rs. 14,22,000/- as undisclosed income from the assessee.
(Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hiren Avinash Modi vs. The ITO - 3– 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record.
We have gone through the records and find that during the appellate proceedings, several notices were served upon the assessee and asked for details about the source of cash deposit in his bank account but the assessee failed to furnish any details / supporting evidence in respect of cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 14,22,000/- before the CIT(A). The assessee has submitted copy of his bank statement, Form No. 16 etc. but no supporting evidence has been furnished before the CIT(A) in respect of the amount which was received by the assessee other than salary. We find that there is considerable delay of 2584 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is settled law that while considering condonation of delay, the assessee is required to demonstrate “sufficient cause” for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time. In the present case, the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation, reasonable or sufficient cause, for such an abnormal delay of 2584 days. The conduct of the assessee clearly shows gross negligence and lack of bona fides. In these circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation itself. Even on merits, since the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities as well as before this Tribunal and has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), we find
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.