Mr. Bipinchandra Natvarlal Modi, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Surat

ITA 2150/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1229 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.2150/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 SHRI BIPINCHANDRA NATVARLAL MODI SHARIF MOHALLO OPP: BUS STAND KACHHOLI VIA SACHIN TAL. CHORYASI, SURAT 394 235. VS ITO, WARD - 6(1) SURAT. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 15/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/06/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)- I, SURAT DATED 19.6.2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NONE HAS C OME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, A PAPER BOOK HAS BEEN FILED CON TAINING 28 PAGES. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RE CORD CAREFULLY. 3. IT EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TIME BARRED BY 23 MONTHS, AND THERE WAS NO PLAUSIBL E REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, AND AS SUCH, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BEING TIME BARRED. IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOWHERE FILED ANY APPLICATIO N FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. UPTO AND UNLESS, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(A) IS CONDONED, THE APPEAL CANNOT BE DECIDED ON MERIT. IN THE PAPER BO OK, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ITA NO.2150/AHD/2013 2 DETAIL ON MERIT. IT HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPI ES OF CERTAIN JUDGMENTS WHEREIN DELAY HAS BEEN CONDONED. PARTICULARLY, THE ASSESSE E HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF JUDGMENT AUTHORED BY ME ON 11 TH OCTOBER, 2002 AT RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CLEARING AGENCY P.LTD. VS. ITO, (2003) 80 TT J RAJKOT 668, WHEREIN DELAY OF 345 DAYS WAS CONDONED. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WH ETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS A CASE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, BEFORE APPLYING ANY JUDGM ENT, IT IS TO BE SEEN WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY. PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND NO T THE LENGTH OF DELAY MATTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE L D.CIT(A) NOR FILED ANY AFFIDAVIT. THE SO-CALLED EXPLANATION PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS SUFFICIENT. TH EREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL. IT IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH JUNE, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/06/2016