Shailbala Chowdary L/H Late Shri Kailashchandra Chowaday, Yavatmal V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), Nagpur

ITA 205/NAG/2017

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shailbala Chowdary, the legal heir of Late Shri Kailashchandra Chowdary, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur, for the assessment year 2005-06. The original assessment was based on incriminating material found during a search operation related to another individual, leading to a significant increase in the assessed income due to unexplained investments and discrepancies in the books of account. The appellant's return post-search did not differ from the original return, which was filed before the search. The tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a substantial delay in filing, attributing the delay to the appellant's health issues, which the tribunal found insufficiently explained.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136753 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.205/NAG/2017 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shailbala Chowdary L/H Late Shri Kailashchandra Chowdary, Darwha Road, Yavatmal- 445001. PAN : ABDPC0685M Vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1(2), Nagpur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nagpur [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 12.09.2011 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2005-06 was filed on 31.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs.1,61,720/-. Subsequently, during the course of search and search operations conducted in the case of one Mr. Hariom Choudhary, certain incriminating material belonging to the assessee was stated to be Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam Date of hearing : 16.10.2023 Date of pronouncement : 18.10.2023 ITA No.205/NAG/2017 2 found. Based on this, a notice u/s 153C was issued on 19.06.2008. In response to notice u/s 153C, the return of income was filed on 16.10.2008 declaring same income as declared in the original return of income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Nagpur (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 30.12.2008 at a total income of Rs.57,99,560/- after making addition on account of unexplained investments and difference in the balance of books of account etc. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order, had partly allowed the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. 6. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 1995 days. The appellant filed a petition for condonation of delay by stating that the appellant, who is deceased, could not file the appeal as he was suffering from kidneys ailment and undergone bypass open heart surgery in the year 2008, therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. We had carefully gone through the condonation petition and find that in the condonation petition it is ITA No.205/NAG/2017 3 only stated that he was suffering from kidneys ailment and undergone bypass open heart surgery only in the year 2008, whereas, the appeal was disposed of by the ld. CIT(A) in the year 2011, no explanation whatsoever was given as to why the assessee could not initiate steps for filing the appeal in time in the year 2011. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not diligent in prosecute the remedy within the time prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced on this 18 th day of October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 18 th October, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nagpur. 4. The Pr. CIT (Central), Nagpur. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, नागपुर / DR, ITAT, Nagpur. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.