Bapurao Ramkishan Kagne, Aurangabad V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Aurangabad, Aurangabad

ITA 739/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0632 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; TDS
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.739/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Bapural Ramkishan Kagne, Prop. M/s.Sai Electricals & Electronics, Plot No.3, Om Sai Avenue, Thakre Nagar, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad. PAN: AKWPK 3467 F Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Sardar Singh Meena - CIT Date of hearing 26/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, dated 26.02.2014 for the A.Y. 2008-09 under section 263 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT was not justified by giving direction to the AO to give consequential effect to the order by adding back contract receipts of Rs.17,93,686/- to the total income of the assessees. 2. The learned CIT erred in making giving direction to the AO for further enquiry in respect of TDS to be deducted on DG Rent payment, rather the DG Rent payment to single person does not exceed Rs.1,20,000/- 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT was not justified in disallowing Rs.23,269/- (ground is not forced). ITA No.739/PUN/2019for A.Y. 2008-09 BapuraoRamkishanKagne(A) 2 4. The appellant leave to add, after, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of final hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner of Income tax Aurangabad had passed an order u/s 263 of the Income tax Act for AY 2008-09 in the case of the assessee on 26/02/2014. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT, the assessee had filed appeal before this tribunal. The assessee is a proprietor of Sai Electricals and Electronics. 3. As per Form 36 filed by the assessee, there is delay of 1807 days in filling appeal before this tribunal against the order of CIT u/s 263. 4. None appeared for the assessee. Earlier the case was scheduled for hearing on 11/08/2020, 28/08/2020, 23/09/2020, 04/11/2020, 23/12/2020, 17/02/2022, 24/05/2022, and none appeared on behalf of the assessee, no adjournment letters were filed on-behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee. 5. It is observed that there is delay of 1807 days. Assessee has filed a notarized affidavit. The assessee gave following reasons in the affidavit: -Not aware of the provision after professional advise filed the appeal. -Assessee was suffering from low back pain since last few years. Assessee enclosed Doctor Certificate dated 12/07/2018. ITA No.739/PUN/2019for A.Y. 2008-09 BapuraoRamkishanKagne(A) 3 6. We have studied the affidavit. There is inordinate delay of 1807 days. As per the assessee the appeal should have been filed before 26/04/2014 but it was filed on 08/05/2019. The assessee had attached a Doctor’s certificate dated 12/07/2018, this certificate does not explain the delay as the last date to file appeal was 26/04/2014 i.e. four years before the date of the certificate. Not aware of the provisions of the Act is not sufficient cause to explain the inordinate delay. The Assessee has failed to explain the delay. There is no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. When we analyze the affidavit along with the fact that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee even after so many opportunities by the Tribunal explains that the assessee is not interested in the appeal. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there was no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. Hence, the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 17 th October, 2022/ SGR* ITA No.739/PUN/2019for A.Y. 2008-09 BapuraoRamkishanKagne(A) 4 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.