Hassan Construction, Ballia V. Dy.CIT, Circle - 02, Varanasi

ITA 93/VNS/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0986 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 145(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT ‘SMC’ BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.93/VNS/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hassan Construction, Bishunipur, Ballia, U.P. PAN-AAFFH0798F v. Dy. CIT, Circle-2,Varanasi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 05.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 02.08.2022 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.05.2018 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It transpires from the record that since beginning nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the repeated notices were issued through RPAD as well as email to email ID given by the assessee. Accordingly, the Bench proposes to hear and dispose of this appeal, ex parte. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The appellant had disclosed Gross Receipts, as per the Form 26AS, TDS certificates and books of account, whereas an addition of Rs. 1,26,443/- in turnover had been added on arbitrary basis without justification and hence must be deleted. 2. That, the Assessing Officer had wrongly invoked the provisions of section 145(3) and applied Net Profit Rate @ 8% against disclosed Rate of 6.5%, on imaginary Gross Receipts of Rs. 3,31,23,650/-, against disclosed contract receipted of Rs. 3,29,97,207/-“ ITA No.93/VNS/2020 Hassan Construction, Ballia 2 3. I have perused the impugned order of the CIT(A) and heard the learned Sr. DR. At the outset, it is noted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by accepting the request of the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is as under:- 1. ᮧ᭭तुत अपील तारीख 28-04-2016 को आयकर अिधकारी वाडᭅ-2(4) बिलया ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 30.03.2016 को पाᳯरत आदेश के िवᱧ᳍ दायर कᳱ गई िजसके अनुसार िनधाᭅᳯरत कᳱ आय मᱶ ᱧo 4,99,933/- कᳱ बढ़ोतरी कᳱ गई थी। फामᭅ 35 के अनुसार पाᳯरत आदेश कᳱ कॉपी ᳰदनांक 25.04.2016 को सᳶवᭅस कᳱ गई थी अतः समय सीमा के अंदर है । 2. नोᳯटस के जवाब मᱶ ᮰ी एस.एस .᮰ीवा᭭तव सीo एo, उपि᭭थत ᱟए तथा अपील वापस लेने का अनुरोध ᳰकया। अनुरोध ᭭वीकार ᳰकया गया। 3. इस ᮧकार अपील वापस तथा खाᳯरज कᳱ जाती है और आय मᱶ ᱧ 4,99,933/- कᳱ जोड़ को कंफमᭅ ᳰकया जाता है। Thus, it is manifest from the impugned order that the assessee requested to the CIT(A) to accept the request of the withdrawal of the appeal which was accepted and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Nothing has been brought on record by the assessee to controvert the facts recorded by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. Moreover, the present appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation, as it was filed on 19 th March, 2020 against the impugned order dated 4 th May, 2018. Therefore, there is a delay of more than one and half year in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons but an excuse is taken that due to misunderstanding between the assessee and its counsel, the assessee could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. This version of the assessee cannot be accepted when the assessee has not explained the surroundings facts and circumstances about the misunderstanding between them and leading to the delay in filing the present appeal. In any case, when the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn by the CIT(A), then no grievance is left. Accordingly, the present appeal of the assessee is dismissed being not maintainable. ITA No.93/VNS/2020 Hassan Construction, Ballia 3 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being not maintainable. Order pronounced on 02.08.2022 at Allahabad, U.P. in accordance with Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02/08/2022 Varanasi/Allahabad Sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Hassan Construction, Ballia 2. Respondent- Dy. CIT, Circle-2, Varanasi 3. CIT(A),Varanasi 4. CIT 5. DR By order Sr. P.S.