Shital H. Mehta L/h of late Hasmukh K. Mehta, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Surat

ITA 2540/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2310 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2022
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2540/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Shital H Mehta, L/H of Shri Hasmukh K Mehta, 302, Maha Laxmi Building, Brahman Falia, Katargam, Surat-395004. PAN No. ABJPM 8800 C Vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(2), Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Appellant represented by None Respondent represented by Ms. Anupama Singhla, Sr.DR Date of hearing 12/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 12 /04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 09/03/2015 for the Assessment year 2004-05. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 2,69,340/- at the rate of 1% of job work turnover of Rs. 2,69,33,997/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of ITA 2540/SRT/2015 Sh. Shital H Mehta Vs ITO 2 Rs. 96,69,643/- being 25% of total purchase of Rs. 3,82,78,574/- as bogus purchases. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,63,755/- out of the total addition of Rs. 14,94,187/- for difference in interest income shown in return of income and that shown in TDS certificates. 4. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Perusal of record reveals that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 09/03/2015. However, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 31/08/2015, thus there is a delay of 105 days in the filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Perusal of record shows that, no application for condonation of delay is filed despite issuing defect memo by the Registry of the office. We find that number of adjournments were sought by Shri Rajesh Shah, learned authorized representative of the assessee. When the case was relisted on 12/4/2022, Shri Mehul Shah from the office of Sri Rajesh Shah appeared and submits that they have no communication with the assessee and they have already intimated the Bench that they wish to withdraw their authority letter. In these circumstances, we find no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material on record. We find that the ld. AR of the assessee filed application on 24/8/2021 for withdrawal of their authority and communicated the same to the assessee. Postal receipt of registry ITA 2540/SRT/2015 Sh. Shital H Mehta Vs ITO 3 letter dated 01/09/2021 is placed on record. After withdrawal of authority by Shri Rajesh Shah, the notice of haring of appeal was sent to the assessee which is returned back by the postal authority without any specific indorsement. Therefore, we presumed that the notice was intentionally avoided. In these circumstances, we left with no option except to decide the appeal of the assessee on the basis of submission of the ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue and the material available on record. 3. The ld. Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appeal of the assessee is filed 105 days beyond the period of limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been filed, therefore, the appeal of the assessee may not be admitted for adjudication. 4. We have considered the submissions of ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. We find from perusal of the record that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 09/03/2015. However, the present appeal was filed on 31/08/2015, thus there is delay of 105 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Registry of the Bench issued defect memo to the assessee. Despite issuance of defect memo, neither the assessee filed application for condonation of delay nor communicated such reasonable cause, therefore, in absence of proper application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is not condoned. Resultantly, the appeal is not admitted for hearing and adjudication. ITA 2540/SRT/2015 Sh. Shital H Mehta Vs ITO 4 5. In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed before not admitted. Order pronounced 12 /04/2022, in open court and result was also placed on notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 12/04/2022 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee – 2. Revenue - 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File // True copy // By order Sr.Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat