Fortune Filaments Pvt. Ltd., Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Surat

ITA 3124/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6262 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.3123, 3124 AND 3125/AHD/2013 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2009-2010 FORTUNE FILAMENT P.LTD. 5001, WORLD TRADE ENTRE RING ROAD, SURAT. ADDRESS: G/424, MAHALAXMI APARTMENT NR.RADHA KRISHNA MANDIR L.H. ROAD, SURAT 395 010. PAN : AAACF 3417 H VS ITO, WARD - 1(2) SURAT. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/04/2017 !'/ O R D E R PER BENCH: PRESENT THREE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATED I.E 30.10.2013 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A)-I, SURAT ON THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSTT .YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.3123/AHD/2013 & 2 OTHERS 2 2. ITA NO.3123/AHD/2013 EMERGES OUT OF ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 28.12.20 11. ITA NO.3124/AHD/2013 EMERGES OUT OF PROCEEDINGS INITIAT ED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UPON THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-APPEARANCE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UPO N THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3125/AHD/2013 EMERGES OUT OF PROCEEDINGS TAKEN U P AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT I.E. PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 3. AGAINST ORDERS OF THE AO PASSED IN THE RESPECTIV E PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE L D.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED ALL THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITAT ION BAR. THE BRIEF FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN EACH PROCEEDINGS READ AS UNDER: AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. 6.6 SINCE THE APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY MORE THAN 10 MONTHS AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHI NG THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY ' SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING OF AP PEAL WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMITS AND EVEN A CONDONATION APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED, THEREFORE THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT COND ONED U/S 249(3) AND THE APPEAL IS NOT ADMITTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEA L IS DISMISSED. AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 6.6 SINCE THE APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY MORE THAN 5 M ONTHS AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHI NG THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY ' SUFFICIENT CAUSE ' FROM FILING OF AP PEAL WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMITS AND EVEN A CONDONATION APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED, THEREFORE THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT COND ONED U/S 249(3) AND THE APPEAL IS NOT ADMITTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEA L IS DISMISSED. AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6.6 SINCE THE APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY MORE THAN 5 M ONTHS AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHI NG THAT IT WAS ITA NO.3123/AHD/2013 & 2 OTHERS 3 PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE ' FROM FILING OF APP EAL WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMITS AND EVEN A CONDONATION APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED, THEREFORE THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT COND ONED U/S 249(3) AND THE APPEAL IS NOT ADMITTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES FOR HEARING, NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL SENT NOTI CES FOR SERVICE THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), SURA T HAS WRITTEN LETTER DATED 7.3.2017 EXHIBITING FACT THAT SERVICE HAS BEEN EFFE CTED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AFFIXTURE. REPORT OF THE OFFICER IS ALSO P LACED ON RECORD. INSPITE OF THAT NONE REMAINED PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E, THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR. 5. THE LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE WERE TIME BARRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND IT HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLI CATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN THE ABOVE SITUATION, UNLESS DELAY IS BEI NG CONDONED FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ISSUE AGITATED IN THE APPEAL CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FULFILL REQUIR EMENT CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 249(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT I.E. FAIL TO EXPLAIN T HE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THER E IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION DEMONSTRATING THE FACT AS TO HOW THE DE LAY HAS OCCURRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, W E DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE APPEALS. THESE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH APRIL, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10/04/2017