SACHIN KUMAR KAMAL ZANWAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARBHANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 795/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2024AY 2011-12Bench: 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 held that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of 1782 days, and the assessee failed to provide valid reasons for this delay. Consequently, the delay could not be condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in a grocery business, failed to comply with notices issued under sections 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed cash deposits and unexplained cash credit due to the assessee's failure to explain their source or genuineness.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was justifiable and could be condoned. The Tribunal also considered the AO's assessment of unexplained cash deposits and credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Parag Rathi, Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Hearing: 21.05.2024Pronounced: 21.05.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad dated 20.06.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under :

The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of running a grocery shop. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2011- 12 was filed on 11.07.2011 disclosing income of Rs.2,52,030/-.

Subsequently, based on the information received from another Assessing Officer- ITO, Ward-1(1), Parbhani that the appellant received interest income of Rs.4,46,016/- on investment of Rs.13,99,286/-, formed an opinion that income escaped assessment of tax, accordingly issued notice u/s.148 on 17.09.2014. The appellant neither complied with the notice issued u/s.148 nor with the notice u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances, the AO was constrained to complete the assessment vide order dated 31.03.2016 by assessing to tax the cash deposits made in the bank account amounting to Rs.10,01,228/- and unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,85,000/- by recording a finding that the appellant had failed to explain the source of cash deposits as well as proved genuineness of cash credit of Rs.3,85,000/-.

3.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, however, on merits.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

I heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, I find that the appeal is filed with a delay of 1782 days. The appellant filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay. I had carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and find that the appellant only explained the reasons for non-compliance before the CIT(A). No reasons whatsoever were furnished in support of the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the absence of any reason for explaining the delay of 1782 days, it can be presumed that there was no valid reasons for delay in filing the appeal the Tribunal.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to condone the delay of 1782 days, accordingly appeal is dismissed in limine, without condoning the delay.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 21st day of May, 2024.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →