2025 (7) TMI 1286 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's appeal allowed for statistical purposes, matter restored to AO for fresh assessment despite non-cooperation

Shri Sanjiv Jha Versus The ITO, Ward-4, Bharatpur

Shri Sanjiv Jha Versus The ITO, Ward-4, Bharatpur - TMI ISSUES: Whether delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned on the ground of negligence of counsel and lack of communication of appellate order to the assessee.Whether the ex-parte dismissal of appeal by the lower appellate authority for non-compliance with notices and non-filing of submissions is justified.Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in absence of any explanation or evidence from the assessee.Whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication where the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and claims discrepancies in the quantum of cash deposits added. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is condoned as there is 'sufficient cause' due to negligence of counsel and failure to communicate the appellate order to the assessee, supported by precedents recognizing that mistake of counsel may be considered in condoning delay.The ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate authority is upheld as the appellant failed to comply with multiple notices and did not furnish any submissions, justifying the exercise of the authority's inherent power to dismiss the case in default.The addition of Rs. 15,34,300/- as income from undisclosed sources under section 144 is confirmed on the ground that the assessee did not rebut the presumption or provide cogent evidence to disprove the findings of the Assessing Officer.The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing, as the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and raised a prima facie discrepancy in the amount of cash deposits added. RATIONALE: The legal framework applied includes section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows completion of assessment in absence of compliance by the assessee, and the inherent power of judicial/quasi-judicial authorities to dismiss proceedings in default of prosecution, as affirmed by Supreme Court precedents.Precedents cited emphasize that 'sufficient cause' for delay includes negligence of counsel and failure to communicate orders, and that courts should advance substantial justice by condoning delay unless mala fide intent is shown.The principle that an assessee's non-cooperation and silence may lead to adverse inference and confirmation of additions is supported by judicial pronouncements, including the authority that an assessee should not be rewarded for negligence by repeated opportunities without compliance.The decision to restore the matter for fresh adjudication reflects a doctrinal approach favoring adjudication on merits and ensuring the right to be heard, particularly where the assessee was not represented effectively before the lower authorities and raised issues requiring factual verification.