TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee is an individual. The appellate order passed by the Learned CIT(A) on 09.02.2024 was served online on ITBA Portal on 09.02.2024 which came into the knowledge of the assessee in January-2025 as the old counsel of the assessee has not informed about the passing of the order and he has also not filed any reply before the CIT(A). The assessee was not aware and has no knowledge for receiving of the hearing notices from CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee has no knowledge regarding issue of hearing notices as well as passing of ex-parte order on 09.02.2024 by the learned CIT(A). There is delay of 285 days which is bonafide and non- intentional and beyond the control of the assessee. The Hon'ble I.T.A.T is humbly requested to consider the fact sympathetically and admit the appeal of the assessee by condoning the delay. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 Appeal-Condonation of Delay-Claim for deduction under Section 80-0 made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year 1993-94 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Against order of Commissioner, assessee p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay reasonable cause-delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there was valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". Copy of order is enclosed. (iv) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unless mala fides are writ large, delay should be condoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits and not technicalities. The Appellant, a local authority, acquired land belonging to one of the Respondents for a development scheme in 1988. As the Appellant did not pay the compensation amount despite notice, the property was auctioned and sale confirmed in favour of the highest bidder in 1992. The bidder deposited the sale proceeds. The Appellant then "woke up from its slumber and filed objections before the Single Judge for setting aside the auction sale. Even in these proceedings, the Appellant did not appear and the same were dismissed for non-appearance. The sale deed was executed in favour of the highest bidder. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal." In support of the contentions so raised the Authorized person has filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.2 The Id. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties and the delay of 285 days in preparation and filing of appeal on account of mis communication resulted in delay and that too of his earlier counsel. As is evident that there was miscommunication that is why there remain noncompliance and that is the reason for delay in filling the appeal. Considering the decision of the apex court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471(SC) wherein it was directed the other courts to consider the liberal approach in deciding the petition for condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk. Ld. AR of the assessee also cited various judgment in his prayer for condonation of delay. 2.3. During the course of hearing, the Id. DR objected to assessee's application for condonation of delay as the assessee remain noncompliant before the Id. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 25.09.2018 fixing the case for hearing on 30.10.2018. Online written reply received on 03.10.2018 along with power of attorney and copy of ITR. Further notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 28.02.2019 along with a query letter fixing the case for hearing on 11.03.2019. No compliance made by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 20.06.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 01.07.2019. No compliance made by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 03.09.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 12.09.2019. No compliance made by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 25.09.2019 along with query letter fixing the case for hearing on 10.10.2019. No compliance made by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 11.11.2019. In compliance to this notice the assessee filed online written reply received on 04.12.2019 furnished documents, details and produced relevant documents which were examined on test check basis and replies filed were placed on record. 4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings it is noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs 3,19,000/- during the course of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y log register & call register for mobile. Besides the personal element on the expenses incurred on mobile expenses cannot be denied. The reply of the assessee was not fully acceptable in absence of complete bills & vouchers excess booking of these expenses cannot be ruled out. In view of these facts it will be fair and just to disallow a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of expenses and added to the total income of the assessee. 4.4 During the year under consideration, the assessee has filed capital account but not shown any withdrawals regarding household expenses. Beside the personal element on the expenses incurred on household expenses cannot be denied. In this regard, the assessee has not filed any explanation regarding household expenses In view of these facts Id. AO considered it be fair and just to make addition for a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- on account of household expenses and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Before the Id. CIT(A) the assessee was given six opportunity of being heard on different dates the assessee did not comply to five notices and in cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission of documents and evidences. 5.2 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has delivered a decision in the case of CIT vs Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd on 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of 2009) holding that a negligent appellant should not be given many opportunities just because the quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference, otherwise it would amount to giving premium to the appellant for his negligence.When the appellant is non cooperative, it can safely be concluded that the appellant did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and non-genuineness of his claim. 5.3 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai in the case of M/S Chemipol vs Union of India, Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 clearly held that every court, judicial Body or Authority, which has a duty to decide a case between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default. Relevant extract of the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai in the said case is extracted below: "(i)- .......................... (ii) While not inclined to depart from the the view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal for non- attending hearing inferring that the appellant is not effectively pursuing the appeal. 5.5 It is evident from the facts narrated in para-5 above 5 above that though sufficient opportunities have been given to the appellant for pleading its case with supporting evidences or for furnishing written submission in support of his claim, the appellant and/or his AR has never responded and not even cared to file adjournment letters. Appellant's this attitude shows its scant regard towards statutory notices which itself makes the appeal liable for dismissals. The law, as per principle of well known dictum "VIGILANTIBUS, NO DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT", as observed by the Hon, ITAT Pune in the case of Abhay P. Kalbhor, Pune vs DCIT in ITA No. 1469/PN/02 for AYs 1989-90 to 1999-00 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was treated as unadmitted in view of non attendance of the proceedings by the appellant. The Hon. Tribunal also commented that it assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. In the circumstances narrated above, it is admitted fact that the appellant is least interested in contesting his case before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hers, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of the expenses claimed. During the year under consideration, the appellant had filed capital account but not shown any withdrawals regarding household expenses. The appellant had not filed any explanation regarding household expenses. Therefore, the AO made an addition of sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of household expenses. Since the appellant did not make any cogent explanation regarding the issues and in view of this, the AO proceeded with making the alleged addition/disallowance. Even, during the appeal proceedings, the appellant could not produce any documentary evidences in support of his claim, neither did he make any response despite issuing various statutory notices as mentioned in para 5 above. As such, I find no reason to alter the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 3,19,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act on KCC A/c Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of household expenses and disallowance made of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the expenses claimed. In view of this, the action of the AO is sustained and the ground Nos 1 to 6 of the ap....