M/s. Unique Automobiles, V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1064/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0599 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 1064/PN/2014 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S. UNIQUE AUTOMOBILES, 1043, MADHAVNAGAR ROAD, SANGLI PAN : AAAFU3563A ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, SANGLI / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 19-10-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-10-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR DATED 13-01 -2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 27 DAYS. 2 ITA NO. 1064/PN/2014, A.Y. 2004-05 2. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MAY, 2014. EV EN AFTER THE LAPSE OF MORE THAN 2 YEARS, FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF A PPEAL, NO APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. NO REASON WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER SHOWS THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE S ERVICE OF SEVERAL NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), THE ASSESSEE DID N OT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. EVEN B EFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER INITIAL APPEARANCE NEITHER THE ASS ESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED INSPITE OF THE FACT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEFEND ITS CASE. 3. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME. HOWEVER, NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED. EVEN TODAY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI M.K. KULKARNI HAS EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FILE THE APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY AS THE ASSESSEE/A PPELLANT HAS NOT CONTACTED HIM EVEN AFTER REPEATED MESSAGES AND RE MINDERS. THE ACT AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY, HOWSOEVER SMALL IT MAY BE, TH E APPEAL IS 3 ITA NO. 1064/PN/2014, A.Y. 2004-05 LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 21 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 21 ST OCTOBER, 2016 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR 4. ' / THE CIT-I/II, KOLHAPUR/CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE