Shri. Siddharudha R. Rebbannavar., Belgaum V. Income-Tax Officer (1) (3), Belgaum

MA 2/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2177 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT K LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH D SHOLAPURMATH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 02/PNJ/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 92/PNJ/2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2007 - 08) SHRI SIDDHARUDH R. REBBANNAVAR, PROP: SHRI LAXMI TYRES, GOKAK ROAD, TQ: SAUNDATTI. PAN:AJLPR6364N (APPLICANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM. APPLICANT BY : SH RI SURESH D. SHOLAPURMATH, ADV. RESPOND ENT BY : SHRI NISHANT K., LD. DR. DATE OF HEARING: 04/07 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04 /07 /2014 O R D E R PER: D.T.GARASIA (JM) THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS SURPRISED TO READ THE ORDER OF BENCH , ON THE GROUND THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED BEFORE BENCH IS FIRST APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGE THE BANK TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING SUBMITTED EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION DETAILS WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION RECORD ED IN BOOKS OF BANK LOANS FROM KARNATAKA SOCIETIES IN SPITE OF THIS AO MADE THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE IS SURPRISED TO READ THE ORDER AND THEREFORE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED. 2. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS VERY OLD ONE THEREFORE, IT MAY BE RECALLED. 2 . MA NO. 02 /PNJ/2014 (A.Y.2007 - 08) OUT OF ITA NO. 9 2 /PNJ/2013 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME AND THAT APPEAL IS NOT FILED IN TIME , THEREFORE, TRIBUNAL IS JUST IFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSE E IS REQ UIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER WITHIN 60 DAYS. THE COMMISSIONER HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2012 AND AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE AO ON 1.2.2012. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS SERVED WITH THE ORDER BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCEMENT IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 .07 .2014. SD/ - SD/ - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 04 .07 .2014. P.S. - *PK* COPY TO: ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER