The Branch Manager, Yamunanagar V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 99/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80895 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 99/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE BRANCH MANAGER, VS THE ITO (TDS) VIJYA BANK, PANCHKULA. JAGADHARI ROAD, YAMUNANAGAR. PAN: RTKV01212B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 23.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.09.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 30.08.2013 FOR FI NANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 (FIRST QUARTER) CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 272B OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL PAPERS MENTIONED 11.0 9.2013 AS DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER APPEALED AGAI NST, HOWEVER, THE APPEAL IS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF TRIBU NAL ON 23.01.2014. THE OFFICE ISSUED DEFECT MEMO TO THE AS SESSEE INTIMATING THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 74 DAYS AND NO PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FI LING APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR H EARING, ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN DIRECTED TO REMOVE DEFECTS IN TH E APPEAL 2 PAPERS. FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FO R 19.06.2014 AGAIN INTIMATING THE ASSESSEE THAT APPEAL IS TIME B ARRED BY 74 DAYS AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.09.2014. LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVE N TO ASSESSEE. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION, WHAT-SO-EVER TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHAT PRE VENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD O F LIMITATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EXPLAIN DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE/EXPLAIN ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-PRESEN TING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 3. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EXPL AIN THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS L IABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN-LIMINE. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE TIME BARRED AND ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS ED IN-LIMINE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER,2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH SEPTEMBER,2014. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH