2025 (1) TMI 696 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT dismisses appeal for 232-day delay citing inadequate explanation and non-cooperation from absent assessee

ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal due to 232-day filing delay. The assessee cited misleading guidance and lack of awareness as reasons for delay but ... Delay of 232 days in filing of the present appeal - HELD THAT:- The assessee has given no cogent reason for this delay in filing of appeal before us and has simply stated that the delay was due to misleading guidance and lack of awareness, which caused the present delay in filing of appeal. Even when the matter was called out for hearing neither any application for adjournment was filed and none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, we observe that even before us the assessee had continued to remain non-compliant and evasive. We are therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the present appeal, since the assessee has given a vague reasoning for the instant delay of 232 days in fling of the present appeal and has continued to remain non-cooperative even before us. Decided against assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe legal judgment revolves around several core issues:Condonation of Delay: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to alleged genuine hardships and lack of awareness by the appellant.Unjustified Ex Parte Assessment: Whether the assessment under Section 144 was justified given the appellant's claim of lack of income and unawareness of transactions in the bank account managed by an agent.Non-Prosecution Dismissal by CIT(A): Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution by the CIT(A) was appropriate.Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: Whether the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to present his case, thus violating principles of natural justice.No Intention to Evade Tax: Whether the appellant had any intention to evade taxes, given the transactions were conducted by an agent.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISCondonation of DelayRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court referenced the principle that merely filing an appeal does not suffice; it must be pursued effectively.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court was not inclined to condone the delay due to vague reasoning and continued non-compliance by the appellant.Key evidence and findings: The appellant cited misleading guidance and lack of awareness as reasons for the delay.Application of law to facts: The court found the reasons insufficient and noted the appellant's non-cooperation.Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the appellant's claims but emphasized the need for effective pursuit of the appeal.Conclusions: The delay was not condoned.Unjustified Ex Parte AssessmentRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 144 allows for ex parte assessment when the taxpayer does not comply with notices.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court upheld the assessment due to the appellant's non-compliance and lack of credible evidence.Key evidence and findings: The appellant claimed unemployment and lack of knowledge of transactions managed by an agent.Application of law to facts: The court found the appellant's claims unsubstantiated and noted non-compliance with notices.Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the appellant's explanation but emphasized the need for compliance.Conclusions: The ex parte assessment was justified.Non-Prosecution Dismissal by CIT(A)Relevant legal framework and precedents: Dismissal for non-prosecution is permissible when a party fails to appear or respond.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court supported the CIT(A)'s decision due to the appellant's repeated non-compliance.Key evidence and findings: Seven notices were issued, none of which were responded to by the appellant.Application of law to facts: The court found the appellant's non-response indicative of disinterest in pursuing the appeal.Treatment of competing arguments: The court emphasized the appellant's responsibility to engage in the process.Conclusions: The dismissal for non-prosecution was upheld.Violation of Principles of Natural JusticeRelevant legal framework and precedents: Fair hearing is a fundamental right in judicial proceedings.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found no violation as the appellant was given ample opportunity to present his case.Key evidence and findings: The appellant failed to attend hearings and present evidence.Application of law to facts: The court noted the appellant's failure to utilize the opportunities provided.Treatment of competing arguments: The court acknowledged the appellant's claims but highlighted the procedural opportunities given.Conclusions: No violation of natural justice principles was found.No Intention to Evade TaxRelevant legal framework and precedents: The burden is on the taxpayer to prove lack of intent to evade taxes.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found the appellant's claims unconvincing due to lack of evidence.Key evidence and findings: The appellant claimed transactions were conducted by an agent without his knowledge.Application of law to facts: The court noted the appellant's failure to provide evidence supporting his claims.Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the appellant's explanation but required substantiation.Conclusions: The court did not accept the claim of no intent to evade taxes.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it.'Core principles established: The necessity for effective pursuit of appeals and compliance with procedural requirements.Final determinations on each issue: The delay was not condoned; the ex parte assessment and dismissal for non-prosecution were upheld; no violation of natural justice was found; the claim of no intent to evade taxes was rejected.