P.Sunilal, Visakhapatnam V. THE ACIT, Visakhapatnam

ITA 228/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8603 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V N CHARYA; R K SINGH
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.228/VIZAG/2014 P. SUNILAL, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.228/VIZAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 P. SUNILAL VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ACIT RANGE-5 VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AIRFS 7400A ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR REVENUE BY: SHRI K.V.N. CHARYA, DR & SHRI R.K. SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2014 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT:- THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM FORM-36, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 05.0 3.2012, WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.05.2014 RESU LTING IN A DELAY OF 739 DAYS. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSESSEE MERELY SUBMIT S THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE LEGAL POSITION AND HE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE IM PRESSION THAT ON A RECEIPT OF CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER, AN APPEAL CAN BE FILED. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REPRESENTED BY A TAX CONSULTANT FRO M TIME TO TIME AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE O F THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PA SSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN FACT IN 2012, ONE SHRI NEELA KANTHESWAR RAO, CA APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE. WE THEREFORE DISMISS THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ITA NOS.228/VIZAG/2014 P. SUNILAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 2. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.11.2 014. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 COPY TO 1 SRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 102, L AKSHMI APTS., FACOR LAYOUT, WALTAIR UPLANDS, VISKHAPATNAM-530 003. 2 THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM