Shri Kamleshkumar Vallabhbhai Chanchdia, Village Sardhar, Dist. Rajkot V. The ITO-Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot

ITA 156/RJT/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Kamleshkumar Vallabhbhai Chanchadia, the proprietor of Vallabhbhai Punabhai, who appealed against an exparte appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal arose from an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which included an addition of Rs. 11,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee did not appear in multiple hearings, nor did he provide any documentary evidence to support his claims. The Tribunal noted the Assessee's lack of engagement and upheld the original assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138254 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Anil Goel Vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 212 (Punjab & Haryana)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Shri Kamleshkumar Vallabhbhai Chanchadia, Prop of Vallabhbhai Punabhai Prop of Vallabhbhai Punabhai, Bazar Road, Sardhar-360004 Gujarat PAN:AGWPC0633M (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward- 2(1)(2), Rajkot (Respondent) Assessee Represented: None Revenue Represented: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 15-05-2023 Date of pronouncement : 17-05-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against exparte Appellate order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), arising out of the assessment order ITA No. 156/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year 2016-17 I.T.A No. 156/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No Kamleshkumar V. Chachadia vs. ITO 2 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2016-17. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 55 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. However no condonation petition or affidavit is filed by the assessee. It is seen that no authorization is given to any Counsel to represent the assessee. Today is the 8 th time of hearing of the above appeal. Even in the previous hearings, None appeared on behalf of the assessee and only one occasion namely on 28.11.2022 adjournment was sought for want of advice from Senior Counsel. It is thereafter listed for hearing five times, but None appeared on behalf of the assessee. This clearly shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the above appeal. The assessee has also not filed explaining the delay in filing the above appeal by way of an affidavit or condonation petition. It is further seen on merits, on the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence for the cash receipts before all the lower authorities. 2.1. Even before Ld. NFAC, three opportunities were given to the assessee and the assessee had not response to the hearing notices and not filed any written submissions before Ld. NFAC and thereby dismissed the assessee’s appeal observing as follows: 5.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not complied for even once nor filed any written submission. In absence of the written submission and evidence, it remained to be unexplained as to how the AO's order is erroneous. If the appellant claims that the assessment order was objectionable he should have provided supporting arguments of evidences. Mere stating that the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the I.T.A No. 156/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No Kamleshkumar V. Chachadia vs. ITO 3 A.O. was factually incorrect & legally untenable" is just rhetoric, and does not counter the reasoning of the AD given in assessment order. The AO was compelled to treat the entry of cash receipt of Rs.11,00,000-as unexplained cash credit in absence of any supporting evidences for the claims made by the appellant In any case the exempt income of earlier year cannot be employed in the current year to be part of current income, unless appropriate evidences are submitted 5.5 The appellate proceedings are first line of remedy to those who think that the injustice has been done by the AO. However, the appellant failed to avail the same by non-complying. Therefore, it is assumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his own appeal. Moreover, the appellant failed to bring on records any facts or documents which can explain how the order of the AO is erroneous 5.6. In the case of Anil Goel Vs. CIT (2008) 306 ITR 212 (Punjab & Haryana), the Hon'ble High Court held as under: “4. It is thus obvious on the plain language of section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorized representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable reason for adjournment was given. 5. The Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of order passed by CIT(A) would not amount to committing any illegality because the CIT(A) has adopted the reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer and has upheld his order. The judgment of this Court in the case of Popular Engineering Co. v. ITAT (2001) 248 ITR 577 has been rightly relied upon wherein it has been observed that elaborate reasons need not be recorded by the CIT(A) as has been done by the Assessing Officer. The reasons are required to be clear and explicit indicating that the authority has considered the issue in controversy. If the appellate/revisional authority has to affirm such an order it is not required to give separate reasons which may be required in case the order is to be reversed by the appellate/revisional authority" 5.7 Accordingly, I agree with the reasons given by the AO and confirm the addition made by the A.O. The Grounds No. 1 to 4 are hereby DISMISSED. 3. That apart the ground no. 4 raised before us reads as follows: “4. It is respectfully submitted that the assesse is a small trader, stays in a village of Sardhar and had no knowledge of accounts and intricacies of tax laws, he has no permanent accountant or any staff and therefore the details could not be furnished in the course of first appeal proceedings; but I.T.A No. 156/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No Kamleshkumar V. Chachadia vs. ITO 4 the assesse is serious in the matter of proceedings; therefore it is prayed that the additional evidences as may be furnished in the course of hearing of this appeal before the Honorable bench may kindly be admitted as such.” 4. But however seven opportunities were given by the Tribunal, the assessee has neither come forward to file affidavit for condonation of delay nor any evidences filed in support of the merits of the case. In absence of the same, we have no other option to dismiss the appeal in limine. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17-05-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 17/05/2023 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, राजकोट