RAMASHIS RAMKEVAL PANDEY,VAPI V. ITO, WARD-7,VAPI , VAPI

ITA 1228/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramashis Ramkeval Pandey, the appellant, who did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) discovered contractual receipts amounting to Rs.19,10,677 from the Income Tax Department's records and issued a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Due to the appellant's non-compliance with multiple notices, the AO made a best judgment assessment under section 144, adding the mentioned amount to the appellant's income. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was not admitted due to a delay of 207 days in filing, which was not justified by the appellant. The Tribunal, after multiple hearings where neither the appellant nor his representative appeared, dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775539 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1228/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical hearing) Ramashis Ramkeval Pandey Flat No.104, Shivaji Park, Near ST. Xaviers School, Chhrwada- 396 191 बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7, Vapi, Fortune Square-II, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396 191 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ASBPP 4263 B (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Appellant by None राजˢ की ओर से/Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद ्घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 21.09.2024 by the National Face Less Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31.10.2017. 2. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any application for adjournment, despite sending notices for hearing at the address given by the assessee Form 36. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1228/SRT/2024/AY 10-11 Ramashis R Pandey 2 No other alternative address IS available with the Registry. The case was fixed for hearing on 03.06.2025, 30.06.2025 and 10.07.2025 and 01.09.2025. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are constrained to decide this appeal on the basis of materials available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case the assessee did not file return of income for the year under consideration. It was found from ITS details that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received contractual receipts of Rs.19,10,677/-. Thereafter, AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2017. Due to repeated non-compliance of assessee in respect of notices on 6 occasions, AO made his best judgment u/s 144 of the Act after relying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts and added addition of Rs.19,10,677/- reflected in 26AS. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) after 207 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of assessee relying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. 4. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the appellant has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the appeallant. We have heard Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and the materials available before. We find that appellant was non-cooperate before AO as well as CIT(A). Various Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1228/SRT/2024/AY 10-11 Ramashis R Pandey 3 opportunities of hearing were given to assessee. Neither the assessee nor his AR was present during the hearing on 19.02.2025, 12.03.2025, 02.06.2025, 30.06.2025, 10.07.2025 and 01.09.2025 before the Tribunal. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in prolonging the proceedings further. It is well settled that the Tribunal has inherent power to dismiss the appeal in case it is not prosecuted by the appellant. Hence, considering the facts discussed above, the appeal is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 09/09/2025 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Æयाियक सदÖय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदÖय/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सूरत /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 09/09/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S*/SS आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ (अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT  गाडª फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, // TRUE COPY // सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, सूरत Printed from counselvise.com "