SHRI RONAK RAJESHBHAI DOSHI,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGAR V. THE ITO WARD-5, SURENDRANAGAR

ITA 453/RJT/2024

AI Insights

Ronak Rajeshbhai Doshi appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 17,52,887 as unexplained cash deposit in the appellant's bank account for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was dismissed primarily due to a significant delay in filing (411 days), which the tribunal found unjustifiable. The appellant's failure to respond to multiple notices at various stages of the assessment and appeal process contributed to the decision to dismiss the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473474 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL KHANDAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 453/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Ronak Rajeshbhai Doshi, Vasuki Plot, Tal. Thangadh, Surendranagar-363530. Vs. The I.T.O., Ward-5, Surendranagar. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANLPD 1965 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vipul Khandar, A.R. Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER: DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: This is an appeal filed by the appellant arises against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”] dated 15/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Rival contentions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. From perusal of record, we note that there is delay of 411 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The impugned order was passed on 15/03/2023 and the present appeal was filed on 26/06/2024 causing 411 days delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit. In the condonation application, the appellant stated that he has no knowledge ITA 453/Rjt/2024 Ronak Rajeshbhai Doshi. Vs ITO Page | 2 about the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Being a layman, the appellant was not aware about the issuance of order online. When the appellant received recovery letter, the appellant came to know about the issuance of order. The ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that the delay occurred in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant. The appellant has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is provided to the appellant for contesting the case on merit. The ld. AR of the appellant prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue on merit and the ld. AR undertakes on behalf of appellant to be more vigilant in future in complying the notices issued by the revenue authorities. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue has raised objection on the prayer of appellant for condoning the delay as well as remitting the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer and would submit that both i.e. the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have passed their orders in ex parte proceedings as the appellant’s approach before the lower authorities were casual and has failed to comply with the various notices issued by them. Various opportunities were provided by the Revenue authorities to the appellant but the appellant has not complied the notices nor filed any response on the issuance of notices. The appellant does not deserve any leniency at this stage and the appeal may be dismissed with payment of heavy cost. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of information available that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 15,52,441/- in his savings bank account maintained with ICICI bank. Case of appellant was ITA 453/Rjt/2024 Ronak Rajeshbhai Doshi. Vs ITO Page | 3 reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26/03/2018 but the appellant has not filed any response after receiving of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued reminder letter dated 06/07/2018 to the appellant but the appellant had not responded. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 11/09/2018 which was duly served on him but neither the appellant not his authorized representative has submitted any detail. Finally, the Assessing Officer has issued show cause notice to the appellant, contents of which are reproduced on page No. 2 and 3 of assessment order, but the appellant has not filed any reply. Thereafter the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings and passed assessment order on 23/10/2018 under Section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 17,52,887/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in savings bank account under Section 69A of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), neither the appellant nor his authorized representative have appeared or filed any response/submissions/evidences. The ld. CIT(A) issued eight notices to the appellant but the appellant has not complied nor responded to the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of material placed on record, confirmed the action taken by the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of appellant. 5. Before us, there is also a delay of 411 days in filing appeal for which the appellant has only stated that he has not aware about passing of order of ld. CIT(A) and when recovery letter was received from the department then he came to know about passing of impugned order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant has not serious about pursuing his case before the lower authorities as well as before the Tribunal. We also find that both the lower authorities have passed their orders in ex parte ITA 453/Rjt/2024 Ronak Rajeshbhai Doshi. Vs ITO Page | 4 proceedings and before us, no plausible and reasonable explanation has filed for condonation of delay, therefore, we do not find any merit in the explanation given by the appellant with regard to condonation of delay, hence, we dismiss the appeal of appellant on the ground of condonation of delay. 6. In the result, this appeal of the appellant is dismissed. Order is pronounced on 18/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot *Ranjan Ǒदनांक/ Date:18 /10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "