MANISHKUMAR AND CO,BOTAD BHAVNAGAR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 462/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Manishkumar and Co. against orders from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13. The appeals were related to penalties for concealment of income and inaccuracies in particulars, and reassessment of income including unreported interest and discrepancies in contract receipts. The tribunal dismissed the appeals due to the assessee's failure to rectify defects in the appeal filings and non-appearance at multiple hearings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29723 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WAGHE PRASAD RAO
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 143(3); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ɋायपीठ “डी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ŵी टी.आर. सेİȺल क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ। ] ] BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos.462/Ahd/2024 & 463/Ahd/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ /Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 Manishkumar and Co. Salangpur Road Botad Bhavnagar – 364 710 (Gujarat) बनाम/ v/s. The Dy.CIT Circle-2 Bhavnagar ̾थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AALFM 2561 P (अपीलाथŎ/ Appellant) (Ů̝ यथŎ/ Respondent) Assessee by : -None- Revenue by : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)] for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively. 2. In ITA No.462/Ahd/2024, the appeal is against the order of the CIT(A), dated 12/01/2024, which confirmed the penalty levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO had imposed a penalty of Rs.6,36,011/- on the grounds of concealment of income and furnishing of ITA Nos.462 & 463/Ahd/2024 Manishkumar and Co. vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 2 inaccurate particulars. The assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified and sought relief before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. 3. In ITA No.463/Ahd/2024, the appeal pertains to the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 07/12/2018, wherein the total income was reassessed at Rs.2,43,05,590/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,06,07,310/-. The AO made additions on account of non-inclusion of interest income of Rs.34,52,508/- and discrepancy in contract receipts amounting to Rs.2,45,772/-. The assessee challenged the validity of reopening, and the additions made before the CIT(A), who, vide order dated 18/12/2023, upheld the reassessment proceedings as well as the additions made by the AO. 4. Upon filing of these appeals, the Registry observed certain defects in both the cases. There was a delay of 27 days in filing ITA No.463/Ahd/2024 and a delay of 2 days in ITA No.462/Ahd/2024. Further, the date of service/communication of the CIT(A)’s order was not mentioned in Column No. 3(c) of Form 36, and the uploaded copy of the AO’s order was not legible. The Registry issued notices to the assessee to rectify these defects. Despite the reminders, the assessee failed to comply. 5. The appeals were listed for hearing on multiple occasions, and despite the matter being fixed for the tenth (10th) hearing, neither the assessee nor its Authorized Representative appeared before us. No adjournment application was filed, nor was any effort made to rectify the defects pointed out by the Registry. ITA Nos.462 & 463/Ahd/2024 Manishkumar and Co. vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 3 6. Considering the persistent non-compliance and the failure to prosecute the appeals effectively, we find that the assessee is not interested in pursuing these appeals. It is settled principle that an appeal does not merely mean filing of a memo but requires effective pursuit, we hold that the present appeals deserve to be dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance. 7. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. However, the assessee is at liberty to file a restoration application explaining the reasonable cause for non-compliance, if so advised, in accordance with the law. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. pronounced in the Open Court on 25th February, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 25/02/2025 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)-(NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad "