DINESH KUMAR SINGH,RAIGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICE, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

ITA 426/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dinesh Kumar Singh, the appellant, who contested the orders passed under Sections 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Raigarh, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant challenged the reopening of his assessment and the subsequent additions made to his income based on alleged undisclosed cash deposits. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-participation by the appellant. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal primarily due to the significant delay in filing the appeal and the lack of a valid explanation for such delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35813 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) (SC), Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC), Well Trans Logistics India (P) LW (2024) (Del HC), Kalpana Shantilal Haria (2017) (Bom), Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi (2023) (Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL; AW
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी रवीश सूद, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.426/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dinesh Kumar Singh Sonumuda, Kali Mandir, Ward No.42, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 001 PAN: CQMPS5008L .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA a/w. Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Assessee Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 26.12.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 2 Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ITA No. 426/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 31.01.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.144/147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 24.11.2018 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “Gr.No.1: \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s.148/147 is invalid; based on NMS information of cash deposits into saving bank of Rs.14,11,900, which is sourced from cash withdrawals of Rs.13,06,620 from such SB account; AO has not applied his mind independently on such information; it is only reason to suspect' for verifying the facts; there is no live link/nexus between the NMS information of cash deposits & formation of believe for escaped income of Rs.14,11,900; in absence of this pre-requisite/pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147, reopening u/s.148/147 is invalid; liable to be quashed; relied on Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) (SC); Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC); Well Trans Logistics India (P) LW (2024) (Del HC).\" Gr. No.2. \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s.151(1) by PCIT dt.5-3-18 is invalid; PCIT has not cared the mistake of AO in proposal form, i.e., wrong mentioning of provisions of law i.e., sec.147(a) which had been omitted from the statute wef.1-4-89; without verifying/caring the fact that cash deposits of Rs.14,11,900 is made out of cash withdrawals of Rs.13,06,620 from such SB account; it is mechanical approval without application of mind; in absence of valid approval u/s.151(1) by PCIT as mandated by law u/s.151; 3 Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ITA No. 426/RPR/2024 reopening u/s.148/147 is invalid, is liable to be quashed; relied on Kalpana Shantilal Haria (2017) (Bom); Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi (2023) (Bom).\" Gr.No.3: \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.14,11,900 on cash deposits into saving bank, which is sourced by cash withdrawals of Rs.13,06,620 from such SB account; it is unjustified & is liable to be deleted.\" Gr.No.4: \"The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.\" 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on information gathered from NMS that though the assessee had during the subject year made cash deposits of Rs.14,11,900/- in his saving bank account with UCO Bank, Branch : Raigarh but not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018 was issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not file his return of income in response to the said notice. As the assessee had thereafter failed to comply with the notices which were issued by the A.O u/s. 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the latter was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/ss.144/147 of the Act, dated 24.11.2018 in absence of any explanation forthcoming as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs.14,11,900/-, held the same as the assessee’s undisclosed income and determined the income of the assessee at the same amount. 4 Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ITA No. 426/RPR/2024 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the assessee despite having been afforded three opportunities i.e. on 31.12.2020, 12.12.2023 and 10.01.2024 had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal vide an ex-parte order. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) without adverting to the merits of the case dismissed the appeal. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 6. Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) at the threshold appraised the bench that the present appeal involved a delay of 178 days. The Ld. Sr. DR had specifically brought to my notice that though the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC passed the order on 31.01.2024 but the present appeal had been filed on 26.09.2024 which, thus, had resulted to a delay of 178 days in filing of the same. 7. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) on being queried as to on what basis the date of service of the order 5 Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ITA No. 426/RPR/2024 was mentioned at Sr. No.3 of the “Memorandum of Appeal” in Form-36 as 27.08.2024, submitted that the same was for the reason that the assessee had learnt that the CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal only when he was served with a “Show Cause Notice” (SCN) issued u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act, dated 06.08.2024. The Ld. AR had further drawn my attention to the letter dated 05.11.2024 filed by the assessee as regards the defect memo that was issued by the registry, which reads as under: “1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the assessee has filed appeal in Form No.36 for AY12-13 & AY13-14, both, on 26-9-24, against the order passed u/s250 dt.31-1-24 for AY12-13 from CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi & dt.26-7-24 for AY13-14 from Addl./JCIT(A), Kanpur; however, we have received defective notices dt.30-9-24 for both the years for wrong mentioning in Col.No.11 & date of communication of order has been wrongly mentioned; this is not factually correct since the assessee has only known about the impugned orders of CIT(A) on 27-8-24 when penalty notice for AY 12-13 has been received on 27-8-24 by Speed Post on his postal address at \"Bajrang Para Jute Mill, Raigarh-496001 (CG)\"; thereafter, the assessee has filed appeal in Form No.36 on 26-9- 24 for both the years; thus, it is submitted that the assessee has correctly filled up the Form No.36 for both the years and there is no wrong mentioning done by the assessee; in this respect, I am submitting sworn affidavit of the assessee dt.5-10-24 for clarifying the facts; however, we have not received any physical copy of the appellate orders (for AY12-13 & AY13-14) till date.” The Ld. AR had drawn my attention to an “affidavit”, dated 05.10.2024 filed by the assessee, wherein it is deposed that he had learnt about the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi only when he was physically served with the “SCN” issued u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act, dated 06.08.2024. 6 Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ITA No. 426/RPR/2024 8. As the captioned appeal involved a delay of 178 days, therefore, the Ld. Sr. DR had on the earlier occasion i.e. on 16.12.2024 sought some time for filing a counter “affidavit” of the concerned A.O. Thereafter, the Ld. Sr.DR had placed on record an “affidavit”, dated 20.12.2014 of Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, ITO-1(1), Raigarh, wherein he had commented on the deposition of the assessee in his affidavit dated 05.10.2024. 9. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives qua the delay of 178 days involved in filing of the appeal i.e. reckoned from the date on which the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was passed i.e. 31.01.2024. I find it incomprehensible that though there is an inordinate delay of 178 days involved in filing of the present appeal but till date the assessee had neither filed any application seeking condonation of the same nor come forth with any cogent reason as to why the said delay had occasioned. The aforesaid casual and lackadaisical approach of the assessee can safely be gathered on a perusal of the record which reveals that he had neither participated in the proceedings before the A.O nor before the CIT(Appeals). As the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings, therefore, he was visited with an ex-parte order u/ss.147/144 of the Act, dated 24.11.2018. The assessee despite having burnt his fingers and having suffered an ex-parte assessment order, however continued with his casual approach and lackadaisical conduct wherein by not participating in the 7 Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ITA No. 426/RPR/2024 appellate proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) was visited with dismissal of his appeal in limine. The story does not end here. The assessee had failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated time period before me and the same involves a delay of 178 days. Most surprisingly, the assessee instead of coming before me with clean hands in the backdrop of the fact that a delay in filing of the appeal of 178 days was involved in filing of the present appeal a/w. an explanation as to why the same had occasioned however, wrongly states the date of service of the CIT(Appeals) order as 27.08.2024 at Sr. No.3 in Form 36. Rather, the Ld. AR on being confronted with the said anomaly instead of correcting the said mistake submitted that as the order of the CIT(Appeals) had come to his notice only on the said date, therefore, no delay was involved in filing of the present appeal. I am unable to comprehend the aforesaid conduct of the assessee who till date had not even filed a revised “Memorandum of Appeal” in Form 36 and come up with clean hands qua the correct state of affairs and an explanation for seeking condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 10. As is discernible from the “Memorandum of Appeal” in Form 35, it transpires that the assessee had provided email id i.e. [e-mail] and had specifically stated that the notices/communication be sent to him on the same. Ostensibly, as pointed out by the A.O in his “affidavit”, dated 20.12.2024, the SCN on all the 8 Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ITA No. 426/RPR/2024 three occasions i.e. on 12.12.2023, 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024 were dropped in the email of the assessee i.e. [e-mail] and also in the email id of the assessee’s counsel [e-mail]. Also, the Ld. Sr. DR had placed on record a copy of the “Screen shot” (obtained from e-portal) evidencing that the order of the CIT(Appeals), NFAC was successfully delivered in both the aforementioned email accounts. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts in the backdrop of the lackadaisical and casual conduct of the assessee before the lower authorities, I find no reason to admit the present appeal, which in turn, involves a delay of 178 days, specifically when no application seeking condonation of delay of the same has been filed before me. Accordingly, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I refrain from condoning the delay involved in filing of the present appeal and dismiss the same on the said count itself. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 08th day of January, 2025. Sd/- (रवीश सूद /RAVISH SOOD) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 08th January, 2025. ***SB, Sr. PS 9 Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ITA No. 426/RPR/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "