M/s. Frontline Biosystems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 16/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4258 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No.14 to 18/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2009-10 to 2011-12 AND 2013-14 & 2014-15 m/S.Frontline Biosystems P.Ltd. 401, Surjicare Building Sardar Patel Bawala Naranpura Ahmedabad 380 13. PAN : AAACF 3149 C Vs DCIT, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ /(Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR स ु नवाई क तार ख/Date o f Hearing : 23/05/2022 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncemen t: 23/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER BENCH: These are five appeals filed by the assessee are against orders of even dated 15.10.2018 passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad relating to Asst.Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2013-14 & 2014-15. All these appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, it is brought to our notice, the Registry has noted that the appeals filed by the assessee are time barred by 22 days, and acknowledgement receipt with defect memo has been given to the assessee on 7.1.2019, which was duly received by the assessee. However, this defect has not been removed by the IT(SS)A No.14 to 19/Ahd/2019 2 assessee by filing appropriate application to condone the delay and affidavit for the same. The case was posted for hearing on 15.7.2021. However, the assessee has not filed condonation of delay application with supporting affidavits. The case was thereafter adjourned from time to time, however, in any of the occasions, assessee or anyone on its behalf was appeared before the Tribunal. 3. While going through the case files, we noticed that one Shri Bhavik A. Shah, Chartered Accountant has filed a letter dated NIL received by the Registry on 8.1.2019, contents of which read as under: “Subject : - Apology of the mistake in the date of service of order. Dear Sir/Madam, We were submitted the Appeal of M/s.Frontline Biosystems P.Ld. for the Asst.Year: 09-10, 10-11, 11-12, 13-14 and 14-15 in 3 sets on 07.01.2019. Actual date of service of order was 17.11.2018, but, we made mistake in the writing of the date of service of order 17.10.2018 so due to this our appeal fall under 22 days late, if we consider actual date of service of order 17.11.2018 then we are under the legal period of 60 days falling 17.01.2019..” 4. However, we find no proof to support the claim made in the above letter that the assessee has in fact received the order of the ld.CIT(A) on 17.11.2018, and not on 17.10.2018 and no application was filed to rectify the mistake in Form No.36. There is no affidavit by the assessee explaining these details. In the absence of the same, we are unable to accept this plea of the CA without there being supporting affidavit from the assessee or any assistance from the assessee. 5. Further, it is to be noted that today i.e. 23.5.2022 is the 13 th hearing of the above cases; and more than three-and-half years have IT(SS)A No.14 to 19/Ahd/2019 3 been passed since presenting the appeals before the Tribunal. In between the assessee was given as many as thirteen occasions to cure the defects, but the assessee consistently has remained unattended before the Tribunal, either to cure its defect by filing necessary condonation application along with supporting affidavits or to explain the contents of the letter of CA referred above. Even notice sent through RPAD posts returned by the postal authority with remark “Left”. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals before the Tribunal, accordingly, the above appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as unadmitted. 6. It is also observed that the assessee in Form No.36 at Sr.No.10 has mentioned Grounds of appeals “as per attachments”. However, we find that three pages statement of facts signed by Shri Bhavik A. Shah & Co., Chartered Accountants. As per the ITAT Rules, Form No.36 along with grounds of appeal, in case of a company, should be signed by the Managing Director or if Managing Director is not available or where there is no Managing Director by any director of the company, but not by a Chartered Accountant. For this reason also, the appeals of the assessee are defective, and liable to be dismissed as unadmitted. 7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby dismissed as unadmitted. Order pronounced in the Court on 23 rd May, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (PRAMOD M. JAGTAP) VICE-PRESIDENT (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 23/05/2022 vk*