M/S Satav Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Pune V. DCIT Cir-06, Pune

ITA 222/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9709 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR RAJEEV HARIET
• Assessee Lawyers: K SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.222/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07) SATAV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 01, RAJA APARTMENTS, LAKAKI ROAD, MODEL COLONY, PUNE. .. APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE. .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.SRINIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : DR.RAJEEV HARIET DATE OF HEARING : 09.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2012 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IN REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HI M. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN NOT TAKING RELEVANT FACTS INTO ACCOUNT WHILE REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN NOT TAKING A LIBERAL VIEW AS PER THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AND IN DECI DING THE MATTER ON INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, PUNE HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN APPLYING IN CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ISSUE OF CONDO NATION OF DELAY 2 IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS NOT ARISING O UT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER O N MERIT AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, T HE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS NOT ARISING FR OM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SO SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON TH IS ACCOUNT ALONE. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AS REQUESTED BY HIM WITHIN REASONAB LE TIME. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YAD AV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER GSPS PUNE, DATED THE 28 TH AUGUST, 2012. COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE. 3. THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE. 4. THE CIT-III, PUNE. 5. THE DR B BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE.