Dinkar S Manapure, BHANDARA(MH) V. CIT- IV, Nagpur

ITA 227/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1001 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMITAVA BHATTACHARYA
• Assessee Lawyers: V V SARANJAME
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 227/NAG/2013 ASSE SSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. DINKAR S. MANAPURE, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, LALA LAJPATRAI WARD, V/S. NAGPUR. BHANDARA. PAN ASYPM 7011L. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT . APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.V.SARANJAME.. RESPONDENT BY : SH RI AMITAVA BHATTACHARYA. DATE OF HEARING - 07-05-2015 DATE OF ORDER 7 TH MAY, 2015 O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT AT TH E OUTSET IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT THE SAME IS FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PAS SED UNDER SECTION 264 OF I.T. ACT DATED 22 ND MARCH, 2013 BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV, NAGP UR. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LEARNED CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE WHEN IN THE PETITION U/S 264 CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS SOUGHT AND THIS HONOURABLE COURT BE 2 PLEASED TO DIRECT THE CIT IV CONSIDER THE SAME ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEARNED CIT IV WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND THIS HONOURABLE COURT B E PLEASED TO DIRECT THE CIT TO CONSIDER THE SAME. 2. ON THE DATE OF HEARING AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOUR NMENT WAS MOVED BY STATING THEREIN THAT THE APPEAL IN QUESTION WAS FIL ED AGAINST AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 264 OF I.T. ACT AND CERTAIN DETAILS ARE REQ UIRED., THEREFORE, A PRAYER IS MADE TO ADJOURN THE CASE. 3. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LEARNED D.R. HAS RA ISED A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ABOUT THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THIS APPEAL. LEARNED D.R. HAS INFORMED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253 OF I.T. ACT, T HE APPEALABLE ORDERS TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ARE LISTED WHICH DO NOT INCLUDE AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 264 BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 4. WE HAVE CONFRONTED THE SAID PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT TO LEARNED A.R. MR. V.V. SARANJAME WHO HAS ACCEPTED THE LEGAL POSITION. ACCOR DINGLY WE HAVE PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT THAT THE ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND TH E APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST AN ORDER PASS ED UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 7 TH MAY, 2015. 3 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. T RUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE