The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the application filed for condoning the delay of 451 days regarding the appeal for the penalty proceedings.
The assessee Inderjit Singh Manchanda is a non-filer and had failed to file return of income ( RoI ) for assessment year 2011-12. As per the information available on NMS data it was disclosed that during the financial year 2010-11 the assessee had deposited cash in his SB account with Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Ltd.
On the basis of the information received, the case was reopened vide notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act. As the assessee failed to file return, fresh notices u/s 142(1) were issued requiring the assessee to file RoI for assessment year 2011-12. However, none of these notices evoked any favorable response.
Hence, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposit of Rs.12,23,200/- as income and it was brought to tax accordingly and the assessment order was passed the AO. Subsequently Separate proceedings for imposition of penalty have been initiated against assessee .
The CIT(A) found that the assessee had made out sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time and the delay was accordingly condoned.However while considering the order of CIT(A) it was observed that assessee failed to respond to at least four notices issued by the CIT(A).
Hence failure to furnish any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposited and, in that view of the matter the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Accordingly the assessee filed a second appeal before the tribunal. This appeal has been affected by a 451 day delay for filing.
Assesee representative, Fenil Bhatt argued that the applicant was unaware of the statutory provisions and the consultant engaged by the applicant was also unable to notice various notices on account of his old age and lack of technological expertise. He submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor out of any negligence and the applicant has made out sufficient cause for not filing appeal within time.
Sunny Kachhwaha, the Department representative argued that the assessee has been shown to be indolent on multiple occasions and the substantial delay of 451 days cannot be condoned on the spacious ground of lapse on the part of the consultant.
The tribunal during the adjudication observed that the reasons submitted by the assessee are not sufficient to establish sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the said Act. Hence the condonation can be granted only when it is shown that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time.
Therefore the two-member bench of C V Bhadang, (Vice President) and B R Baskaran, (Accountant Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the application for condoning the delay.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
