IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B - SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 1560 /HYD/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 M/S HYDERABAD PL YWOOD INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD . PAN AAACH5009F VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2 ), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKUR TIBREWALA REVENUE BY : SHRI L. RAMJI RAO , DR DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 10 - 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 - 10 - 2017 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN , VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPE AL IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y 2004 - 05. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FINALLY POSTED FOR HEARING ON 10.10.2017 ON WHICH DATE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJO URNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE RECTIFIED IN LD CIT (A)S ORDER . IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IS NOT NECESSARY TO BE RECTIFIED SINCE THE DEFECT , IF ANY , IS WITH REGARD TO ABBREVIATION PVT USED BY LD. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF EXPRESSION P RIVATE AGAINST THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJOURN THE CASE FURTHER BUT THE LD COUNSEL, WH O HAS REPRESENTED THE MATTER SEEKS FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED 2 ITA NO. 1560 /HYD/2017 M/S HYD PL YWOOD PVT LTD. , HYD . SINCE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VALID REASON. I THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER ON MERITS. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT LD CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL I N LIMINE ON THE GROUND THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 138 DAYS IN FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT (A). FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE GIVEN COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO MY CON SULTANTS ON 13.02.2012, WHO HAVE PREPARED THE APPEALS AND I HAVE SIGNED THEM. THE DELAY IN FILING IS NOT INTENTIONAL OR DELIBERATE BUT FOR THE REASONS THAT I WAS UNDER THE HONEST BELIEF THAT THERE BEING NO DEMAND PAYABLE TO FURTHER ACTION WAS WARRANTED. I REQUEST THAT THE DELAY MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED. 3. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE ON 11.9.2011 AND APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 10.10.2011 WHEREAS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 15.02 .2012. THE REASON GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS THAT ASSESSEE - COMPANY WAS OF THE HONEST OPINION THAT THERE BEING NO DEMAND PAYABLE, NO FURTHER ACTION WAS WARRANTED. ASSESSEE BEING A COMPANY IT HAS ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS / ADVO CATES. IN FACT, EVEN BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, SRI M.V. ANIL KUMAR, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, APPEARED AND FURNISHED INFORMATION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, BUSINESS PROFITS WAS NOT SET OFF FROM INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THUS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CONSU LTANT COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN A PROPER OPINION TO THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IN THE MATTER OF FILING OF APPEAL. IN FACT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE LD CIT (A) . SINCE LD CIT (A) HAD NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE 3 ITA NO. 1560 /HYD/2017 M/S HYD PL YWOOD PVT LTD. , HYD . APPEAL AS UNADMITTED FOR NOT GIVING APPROPRIATE EXPLANATION, I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A) SINCE NO FURTHER EXPLANATION IS FILED EVEN AT THIS STAGE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS DISMISSED. PRONOUN CED ACC ORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/ - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED: 11 - 10 - 2017. OKK / 1 M/S HYDERABAD PL YWOOD INDUSTRIES PVT LTD , C/O. M. ANANDAM & CO., CAS, 7A, SURYA TOWERS, S.D. ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 3. 2 ITO, WARD NO. 2(2), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT(A) - 11 , HYDERABAD. 4 THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE - 2 , HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE