Sh. Arvinder Singh Grewal, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 819/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9182 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 819/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SH. ARVINDER SINGH GREWAL, VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(1), LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. ARKPG5719R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.08.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA DATED 13/09/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 9 OF FORM NO. 36 (APP EAL PAPER) HAS MENTIONED 26.09.2011 BEING THE DATE OF COMMUNICATIO N OF ORDER APPEALED AGAINST. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APP EAL IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 27.6.2016. ACCORDING TO OFFICE, THE AP PEAL IS, THEREFORE, TIME BARRED BY 1676 DAYS. ON FILING THE APPEAL, THE ASSE SSEE WAS COMMUNICATED THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL, INTIMATING THE ASSESSEE T HAT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 1676 DAYS. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 0 1.08.2016. 2 3. ON 01.08.2016, SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL APPEARED FOR SHRI MOHIT SHARMA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS INITIATED THAT DESPITE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THE PPEAL IS TIME BARRED, NO STE PS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR FILING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. T HE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO FILE APPLICATION FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 17 .08.2016. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE FIXED I.E. 17.08.2016 FOR HEARING OF TH E APPEAL, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD ALSO REVEALED THAT NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ING ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN TIME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIM ITATION. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE, TREATED AS TIME BARRED A ND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED BEING TIME BARRED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17 TH AUGUST, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR