Appeal dismissed after 161-day delay despite technology unfamiliarity claims by assessee

ITAT Raipur dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred due to a 161-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed unfamiliarity with technology and computers prevented timely access to the CIT(Appeals) order. However, the tribunal found this reason unsubstantiated since the assessee's Chartered Accountant had access to his Income Tax Portal account and had informed him of the appeal disposal. The tribunal characterized the delay as resulting from lackadaisical conduct and refused to condone it, citing the principle that seekers of justice must come with clean hands.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order u/s 250.
2. Non-consideration of assessee's submissions by CIT(A).
3. Jurisdictional validity of notice u/s 143(2).
4. Confirmation of cash deposit as income.
5. Addition of cash deposit as deemed income u/s 69A.
6. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Summary:

1. Validity of the order u/s 250:
The assessee challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.06.2023, which arose from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2. Non-consideration of assessee's submissions by CIT(A):
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions made on 17.05.2022, despite the CIT(A)'s claim that the appellant did not comply with notices served on 27.01.2021.

3. Jurisdictional validity of notice u/s 143(2):
The assessee argued that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 21.09.2018 was issued by ITO Ward 1(1) Bilaspur, who was not the jurisdictional A.O., making the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 23.12.2019 invalid and liable to be quashed.

4. Confirmation of cash deposit as income:
The A.O observed cash deposits of Rs. 8,58,500/- during the demonetization period, which the assessee claimed were sourced from cash in hand. The A.O rejected this claim due to lack of plausible explanation and held the amount as unexplained money u/s 69A.

5. Addition of cash deposit as deemed income u/s 69A:
The CIT(A) scaled down the addition to Rs. 6,08,500/- based on the SOP issued by the CBDT regarding verification of cash transactions during the demonetization period.

6. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The appeal involved a delay of 161 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not being well acquainted with technology and computers, which was opposed by the Ld. DR. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the assessee's claims and deemed the delay as due to lackadaisical conduct. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, citing the need for strict construction of the law of limitation and the absence of a plausible explanation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation without addressing the merits of the case. The order was pronounced in open court on 13th March 2024.

---