Smt. P. Meenakshi, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 428/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9483 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS JT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.428/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. P. MEENAKSHI, PROP. M/S. ESTEEM INFOTECH, FLAT NO.1606 B, BUILDING 1, RANKA COLONY, BILLEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 076. PAN: AKBPM 8132G VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 30.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.08.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)-7, BENGALURU DATED 18.12.2015 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL), IN SO FA R AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE APPELLANT, IS O PPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.428/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DELAY OF 190 DAYS IS EXTRAORDINARY AND THE APPELLANT FAIL ED IN ESTABLISHING AND SUBSTANTIATING 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE CIT(APPEAL ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT REPRESENTATIVE HAS FI LED DT. 28-12- 2013 MENTIONING ABOUT HIS BAD HEALTH CONDITION. 3. THE CIT (APPEAL) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE NUMBE R OF DAYS OF DELAY IS NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA IN CONDONING THE DELAY AND A DELAY OF MORE THAN 5 YEARS HAD BEEN CONDONED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. THE DECISION OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISIT ION V MST KATGI AND OTHERS RELIED UPON BY THE CIT IS REALLY I N FAVOUR THE APPELLANT RATHER THAN THE REVENUE. 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT MAY B E RAISED EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAY ED THAT THE APPEAL. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE WI TH A DIRECTION TO AO TO ACCEPT THE INCOME RETURNED. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 30.06.201 6, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, I HA VE NO OTHER OPTION, EXCEPT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX PARTE , QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) ON ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US AND FIND THAT THE CIT(APPE ALS) HAS ADJUDICATED ALL THE GROUNDS IN DETAIL IN HIS ORDER. SINCE NO DEFE CT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), I CONFIRM THE SAME. ITA NO.428/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 19 TH AUGUST, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.