SHRI NAROTTAMBHAI DEVRAJBHAI RANIPA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1) (5), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 136/RJT/2019Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 October 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and did not appear for hearings. The assessee's submissions regarding the source of cash deposits were also contradictory.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 251 days, and no proper affidavit was filed to condone it. The assessee also failed to appear for multiple hearings before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned without proper evidence and whether the assessee's contradictory submissions warrant dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta,D.R

Narottambhai The ITO, Ward- Devrajbhai Ranipa 12, 1(1)(5), Rajkot Satellite Park, Sadhu Vs Vasvani Road, Rajkot- (Respondent) 360005 PAN No: AIEPR3641Q (Appellant) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri B. D. Gupta,D.R. Date of hearing : 12-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 19-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against ex parte appellate order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot as against the Best Judgment assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15.

Page No 2 Narottambhai Devrajbhai Ranipa vs. ITO

2.

Admittedly this appeal is filed with the delay of 251 days. However Affidavit to condone the delay is not filed before us. There is a letter dated 13.06.2019 by Chartered Accountant, Shri Govind Sonecha requesting to condone the delay of filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, on the ground that the legal and all other matters of the assessee was being handled by his Accountant, who is also died. Therefore the delay in filing the present appeal. This letter does not specify who is the Accountant, his name and date of death with any evidences. In the absence of the same, the contents of this letter cannot entertained.

2.1. Furthermore, we do not find any Authorization in favour of any Professionals by the assessee. This case was posted for hearing on 06.07.2022, 16.08.2022, 01.09.2022, 21.09.2022 and finally today 12.10.2022. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and no request letter for adjournment or any other documents filed before us.

2.2. Admittedly the assessment order passed in this case is a Best Judgment assessment by the Assessing Officer on 13.12.2016 wherein main addition of cash deposits in Rajkot Peoples Co- operative Bank Ltd. of Rs. 11,43,000/- by the assessee. In spite of various notices given to the assessee, the assessee failed to response to the Assessing Officer. Therefore the Best Judgment assessment was passed and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Page No 3 Narottambhai Devrajbhai Ranipa vs. ITO

3.

Aggrieved against the same, the assesse filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot. Before the Ld. CIT(A), none appeared on behalf of the assessee but a written submission was filed. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee namely “The learned Assessing Officer added of Rs. 11,43,000/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The amount of Rs. 11,43,000/- represents deposits made in the bank account out of my agricultural income” which is contrary to the contentions in the written submissions. Thus the assessee claimed the cash deposits are stated to be business turnover, advances and opening cash balance. As the above submissions are contrary to each other, the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposits in the bank account. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the grounds and dismissed the appeal.

3.1. Even before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee, in spite of five hearings offered to the assessee. The assessee also failed to file Affidavit to condone the delay of 251 days. Therefore the above appeal is dismissed as in limine.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →