SAMRUDHA SANTOSH LOMTE, Aurangabad V. INCOME TAX OFFICER Ward-2(3), Aurangabad, Aurangabad

ITA 209/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Samrudha Santosh Lomte against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed his appeal concerning an ex-parte assessment order under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was related to the assessee's minor son, who was involved in a property investment. The NFAC dismissed the appeal due to an unexplained delay of over three years in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to not residing at the address where the order was served and delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal, however, found the explanation insufficient, particularly for the period between August 2018 and March 2020, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137622 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.209/PUN/2023 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Samrudha Santosh Lomte, Shiv-Radha, Plot No.6, Gadiya Garden, Near Apex Hospital, Old Baijipura, Behind Mahesh Nagar, Aurangabad- 431001. PAN : AACPL8825E Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Aurangabad. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 14.12.2022 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under head “salaries”. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had received information that the appellant had purchased immovable property of Rs.30 lakhs along with five others in the name of his minor son, accordingly, issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 23.03.2016. In Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of hearing : 23.03.2023 Date of pronouncement : 23.03.2023 ITA No.209/PUN/2023 2 response to which, no return of income was filed by the appellant. Even the appellant had not complied with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer was constrained to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144, bringing to tax the share of investments of minor son of the appellant of Rs.7,50,000/- in the property purchased along with 5 others for consideration of Rs.30 lakhs vide order dated 22.12.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC on 17.08.2020 with the delay of more than 3 years and 7 months. The appellant had offered the following explanation for condoning the delay :- “Order was passed on 22.12.2016. During that period the appellant was not staying at the address on which notices and order were served. Order was received on 05.08.2018. Time was lapsed in approaching the professional for legal help and further COVID-19 pandemic and lock down prevented the appellant from filing the appeal”. 4. The said explanation was rejected by the NFAC as the assessee had failed to explain the delay between the period August 2018 to March 2020, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in limine by the NFAC. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. ITA No.209/PUN/2023 3 6. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. 7. I have carefully gone through the findings of the NFAC recorded vide para 2.8. On mere reading of para 2.8 of the impugned order, it would be clear that the appellant had not offered any explanation in respect of delay for the period of August 2018 to March 2020 which means that the delay stands unexplained. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the NFAC is justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 23 rd day of March, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 23 rd March, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.