M/s. P.B. Patel & Co., Ankleshwar V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4, Bharuch

ITA 2557/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9926 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO. 2557/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 2003-04 M/S. P. B. PATEL & CO., D/S-33, SARDAR PATEL COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, GIDC, ANKLESHWAR 393 002 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARUCH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. M. MAHESH, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) VI, BARODA DATED 13-04-2007 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 13.04.2007 OF THE LD. CIT(A)- VI, BARODA WHICH WAS SERVED TO THE APPELLANT ON 24-04-2007. THE APPEAL W AS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 23-06-2007 AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS A DELAY OF 383 NO. OF DAYS IN F ILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE DELAY BEING BONAFIDE, INADVERTENT AND ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG ADVICE OF THE L EGAL COUNSELS, THE PRESENT APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED TO BE ADMITTED BY CONDONING THE DELAY. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-VI, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND I N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,91,123/- MADE B Y THE LD. A. O. ALLEGING THE SUPPRESSION OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS DURING THE YEAR. THE ADDITION OF RS.16,91, 123/- BEING ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND IN LAW DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-VI, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND I N FACTS IN ENHANCING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A. O. ALLEGING THE SUPPRESSION OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS BY A FURTHER ITA NO.2557/AHD/2008 M/S. P. B. PATEL & CO. VS ITO, W-4, BHARUCH 2 AMOUNT OF RS.54,599/-. THE ENHANCEMENT OF RS.54,599/- MADE IN THE FIRST APPEAL BEING ERRONEOU S IN FACTS AND IN LAW DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICE, THE APPEAL IS TIME BARR ED BY 383 DAYS. THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS STATED TO BE 24-04-2007, WHEREAS THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 10-07-2008. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOTED THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT RETURN O F INCOME WAS FIELD SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.96,700/-. THE ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LABOUR TO INDU STRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS MAINLY ONGC LTD. ON VERIFICATION OF T HE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND TDS CERTIFICATE FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AS PER TD S CERTIFICATE WORKED OUT TO RS.2,06,07,860/- WHEREAS IT ACCOUNTED FOR RS .1,89,16,737/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS. THUS, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 16,91,123/- ON CONTRACT RECEIPT WAS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED BY SHOW C AUSE NOTICE ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.16, 91,123/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESS EE IS INVOLVED IN SUPPLY OF LABOUR MAINLY TO ONGC LTD. AND THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT HAVE THE DATE WISE BREAK-UP OF RECEIPTS REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF ONGC LTD. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTANT HAS LE FT THE JOB. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T HAT THEY WERE AGREEABLE TO THE SAID ADDITION IN CASE THE DETAILS REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE IN DEED EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE RETURN. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND ALSO DI SCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE AO AND FROM PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.2,06,62,459 /- WAS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCO ME BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.2557/AHD/2008 M/S. P. B. PATEL & CO. VS ITO, W-4, BHARUCH 3 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER . THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, NOTED THAT FURTHER ADDITION IS TO BE ENH ANCED BY RS.54,599/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE W AS INFORMED AND PHOTOCOPY OF THE TDS CERTIFICATES AS WELL AS THE SU MMARY NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PROVIDED TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SUCH ENHANCEMENT SH OULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT TO THE TOTAL INCOME. SHRI BAKUL PARIKH, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AFTER PERUSING THE DOCUM ENTS PROVIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ADMITTED FOR ENHANCEMENT IN WRITING IN NOTE SHEET AND ALSO ADMITTED THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO MAKE ANY FURT HER SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE IN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE RETURN AND THOSE REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, ENHANCED THE ADDITION BY RS.54,599/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN A SUM OF RS.17,47,522/-. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. PRAVINA PATEL, PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM FO R THE PURPOSE OF CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND SUB MITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ADVICE O F SHRI KISHORE SURTI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS WER E ATTENDED BY SHRI BAKUL PARIKH, ADVOCATE. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED SHR I KISHORE SURTI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BUT HE ADVISED THAT THERE IS N O MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT ON RECEIPT OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 06-06-2008 THE A SSESSEE APPROACHED M/S. MUKUND & ROHIT, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WHO HAVE ADVISED THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO WRONG ADVICE THERE WAS A DELAY OF 3836 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IS INADVERTE NT, BONA FIDE AND PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG ADVICE OF THE LEGAL COUNSELS. H E HAS, THEREFORE, ITA NO.2557/AHD/2008 M/S. P. B. PATEL & CO. VS ITO, W-4, BHARUCH 4 PRAYED THAT DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. HE HAS RELIED UP ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS SECOND LEASI NG (P) LTD. 18 SOT 557 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE ADVICE OF THE COUNSEL NOT TO PREFER CROSS OBJECTIONS WAS HELD TO BE REASONABLE CAUSE AND DELAY WAS ACCORDINGLY CONDONED. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TR UST. LIDHIANA VS UJAGAR SINGH & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO.2395 OF 2008 DA TED 09-06-2010 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT UNLESS MALAFIDES ARE WRIT LARGE ON THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTY, GENERAL LY AS A NORMAL RULE, DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED. IN THE LEGAL ARENA, AN ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO ALLOW TH4E MATER TO BE CONTESTED ON MERITS RATHER THAN TO THROW IT ON SUCH TECHNICALITIES. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ION THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS 167 ITR 471 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ION THE CASE OF AUTO CENTRE VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 278 ITR 291. THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO WRONG ADVICE OF TH E COUNSEL THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE SAME MAY BE COND ONED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE ADDITION BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BECAUSE OF THE DETAILS REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFI CATE WHICH EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LEARNE D DR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN THE REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE FOR ENHANCEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL DID NOT SUBMI T ANY EXPLANATION AND ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE AO THAT THE ADDITION IS T O BE MADE FURTHER. THE LEARNED DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO Q UESTION OF GIVING WRONG ADVICE BY THE COUNSEL WHO WAS APPEARING FOR T HE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARO SINGH VS AJAY KUMAR CHAWLA & ORS I N CR NO.810/2001 DATED 14-12-2004 IN WHICH THE HONBLE H IGH COURT ITA NO.2557/AHD/2008 M/S. P. B. PATEL & CO. VS ITO, W-4, BHARUCH 5 CONSIDERING ITS EARLIER DECISION HELD THAT THE COUNSEL MUST DISCLOSE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH INCORRECT ADVICE WAS GIV EN AND IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE A PERFUNCTORY AND GENERAL STATEM ENT THAT THE WRONG ADVICE WAS GIVEN BONA FIDE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IN THAT CASE NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY HA S BEEN SHOWN AND NO COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST THE ADVOCATE WHO PURPOR TEDLY GAVE WRONG ADVICE. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER OF THE PETITION W AS DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. THE LEARNED DR THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF WRONG ADVICE, THEREFORE, DELAY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED IN THE MATTER AND THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, THE DELAY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE MAY BE DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO SECTION 253(5) OF THE IT ACT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL AFTER EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD, IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIEN T CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. SUFFICIENT CAUSE WOULD MEAN A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. SUFFICIENT CAUS E MEANS WHICH PREVENTS A REASONABLE MAN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE ACTI NG UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WAN T OF BONA FIDE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO WRONG ADVICE OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PREFER APPEAL A GAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NO APPEAL WAS PREFERRED WITHIN TIME. THEREFORE, DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS INADVERTENT, BONA FIDE AND DUE TO WRONG ADVICE. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT AG REE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER S THAT THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE FILED ALONG WITH RETUR N OF INCOME HAS EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION. THE AO FOUND TOTAL RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE WORKED OUT TO RS.2,06,07,860/- BUT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT ITA NO.2557/AHD/2008 M/S. P. B. PATEL & CO. VS ITO, W-4, BHARUCH 6 & LOSS ACCOUNT ACCOUNTED FOR TOTAL RECEIPTS IN A SU M OF RS.1,89,16,737/-. THUS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS IN A SUM OF RS.16,91,123/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE AO AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS EXPLAINED. THEREFO RE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.16,91,123/-. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ADMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE DATE WISE BREAK-UP OF THE RECEIPTS REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF ONGC L TD. AND HE HAS AGREED TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AS REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE. WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A), THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER VERIFIED THE RECORD AND FURTHER FOUN D THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE FILED ALONG WITH THE R ETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN FACT RS.2,06,62,459/- AS AGAINST NO TED BY THE AO AT RS.2,06,07,860/- AND AS SUCH FURTHER ADDITION IS TO BE ENHANCED IN A SUM OF RS.54,599/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ISSUED NOTIC E FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE ADDITION IN THE ABOVE AMOUNT. THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ADMITTED TO SUC H ENHANCEMENT IN WRITING AND SUBMITTED THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO MAKE FURTHER SUBMISSION IN THE MATER. THE ABOVE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT THE A SSESSEES COUNSEL AGREED TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND FURTHER A GREED TO THE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ABO VE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTI FICATE HAVE EXCEEDED THE RECEIPTS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACC OUNT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD BEEN APPEARING BEFORE THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY AD VISED THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT NO FURTHER APPEAL IS TO BE PREFERRED IN THE MATTER. THE ABOVE FACTS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO TH E ADDITION AND TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, EVEN NO APPEAL WOULD BE MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT AT ALL AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ITA NO.2557/AHD/2008 M/S. P. B. PATEL & CO. VS ITO, W-4, BHARUCH 7 QUESTION OF GIVING WRONG ADVICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THUS IS FACTUALLY INCOR RECT, WRONG AND WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE. 7. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO SOME OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS/CROSS OBJECTIONS. IN THE CASE OF HIND DEVELOPMENT CORPN., VS. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 873, THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A TRIBUN AL CAN CONDONE THE DELAY IF THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY I N THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL/CROSS OBJECTION. IN THE CASE OF VEDABHAI ALI AS VIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL (2002) 25 3 ITR 798 (SC), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963, TO CONDONE DELAY FOR SUFFICIE NT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED, COURTS SHO ULD ADOPT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH. A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETW EEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE DELAY IS O F A FEW DAYS. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CONSIDERATION O F PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE RELEVANT FACTOR AND CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIOUS APPROACH. IN THE LATTER CASE NO SUCH CONSIDERATION MAY ARISE AND SUCH A CASE DESERVES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NOW IN THE PRESENT CAS E DELAY IS NOT OF A FEW DAYS BUT OF 383 DAYS . BESIDES, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO VALID EXPLANATION/REASON FOR THE DELAY. IN THE CASE OF CI T V. RAM MOHAN KABRA (2002) 257 ITR 773, THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AND OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SP ELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER TO CONDONE THE DE LAY AS WELL, SUCH DELAY CAN ONLY BE CONDONED ONLY FOR SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASONS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. IT IS A SE TTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMITATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCE S. IN THIS CASE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE FOR ONLY A FEW DAYS WAS NOT CONDONED. IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. TAGGAS INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT LTD. (2002) 80 ITD ITA NO.2557/AHD/2008 M/S. P. B. PATEL & CO. VS ITO, W-4, BHARUCH 8 21 (CAL), TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA BENCH, CALCUTTA, DID N OT CONDONE THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY 13 DAYS BECAUSE THE D ELAY WAS NOT DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRES ENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE DECISIONS CITED BY TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS NOTED ABOVE. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED BEING TIME BARRED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09-09-2010 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 09-09-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD