M/s Genuine Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., Mathura V. A.C.I.T.-3, Mathura

ITA 437/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0393 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVIN GARGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 437/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. GENUINE STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD., VS. A.C.I.T. 3, 49-A, JAGANNATHPURI, MATHURA. MATHURA. (PAN : AAACG 7970 J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NAVIN GARGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 22.02.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA DATED 16.02.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICE, THE APPEAL IS TIME BARR ED BY FOUR DAYS. THE ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATED VIDE LETTER DATED 26.10.2012 THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED AND WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD N OT BE DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DEFECT I N THE APPEAL PAPERS, DID NOT FILE ANY APPLICATION OR MATERIAL TO EXPLAIN THE DEL AY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL WAS, THEREFORE, FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 17.12.2012 AND ITA NO. 437/AGRA/2012 2 IN THE NOTICE ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATED THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED. HOWEVER, DESPITE NOTIFYING THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT TAKE ANY STEPS FOR EXPLAINING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, BUT ON T HE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.01.2013. ON THAT DAY, SINCE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.02.2013. AGAIN ON THE DATE OF HEARI NG ON 19.02.2013, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY AND NO MATERIAL WAS ALSO FILED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, WHICH WAS REJECTED BECAUSE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE AB OVE DEFECTS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY STEPS WITHIN TIME GRANTED TO MOVE ANY PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. ACCORDING TO RULE 4A(2)(V) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE REGISTRAR SHALL HAVE THE DUTIES T O CHECK WHETHER THE APPEAL OR APPEALS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION, AND, IF SO, INTIM ATE THE PARTY AND PLACE THE MATTER BEFORE THE BENCH FOR ORDERS. IN THIS CASE, D ESPITE NOTIFYING THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO REMOVE THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP TO MO VE ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OR TO FILE ANY MATERIAL TO EXP LAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, IT IS PROVED ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO SUFFICIEN T CAUSE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY ITA NO. 437/AGRA/2012 3 MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS T REATED AS TIME BARRED. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY