Shri Nanuram Bhanwarlal Puniya, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(3), Surat

ITA 261/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94613 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.261/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 SHRI NANURAM BHANWARLAL PUNIYA 503/504, NEW HARIKRUPA MARKET SALABATPURA RING ROAD SURAT. VS ITO, WARD - 5(3) SURAT. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SOMOGYAN PAL, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 29/09/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/10/2015 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, SURAT DATED 17.10.2012 FOR THE ASSTT.Y EAR 2007-08. 2. SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULE 8 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE IN NATUR E. IT DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY HEAD-AND-TAIL. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NONE COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI HITESH I. THAKKAR HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF T HE LEARNED DR. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL IS T IME BARRED BY 45 DAYS. ITA NO.261/AHD/2013 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE APPLICATION, THE ASSESS EE HAS CONTENDED THAT HE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF SARI CUT-PIECE. WHEN THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL, HE HAS NO BUSINESS, THEREFORE, HE WENT TO HIS NATIVE PLACE IN RAJASTHAN AND PASSED HIS TIME THERE WITH HIS PARENT S. HIS MOTHER WAS NOT IN GOOD HEALTH. THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT PAY AT TENTION FOR FILING OF APPEAL ETC. WE FURTHER FIND THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THERE IS DELAY OF 27 MONTHS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IS ALSO AN EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED O RIGINAL CHALLAN OF THE FEES PAID. THE DEFECT MEMO ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT BEEN REPLIED. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE ON MERITS OF THE ADDITION, WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO TAX DEMAND OF RS.29,590/-. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED BECAUSE T HE CUMULATIVE SETTING OF CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS W ELL AS 27 MONTHS DELAY OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONDONED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSE D FOR TWO REASONS, VIZ. FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PAY REQUIS ITE COURT FEE AND REMOVE THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY OF T HE TRIBUNAL, AND SECONDLY, THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH OCTOBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/10/2015