R. Venugopal, Bijapur V. The Income Tax Officer, ward-1 (3), Belgaum

MA 5/PAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4818 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH S MUTAGAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO S . 05 & 06 /PAN/2016 ( ITA NO S . 3 70 & 371 /PNJ/2014 ) (ASST. YEAR S : 20 0 4 - 0 5 & 2005 - 06 ) R. VENUGOPAL, HOTEL ASHOK, SY NO.66/1, SOLAPUR ROAD, OPP. BLDE NEW CAMPUS, VIJAYAPUR . VS. IT O , WARD - 1 (3) , BELGAUM . PAN NO. AISPR 5657 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR - DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 / 0 9 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 6 / 0 9 /201 6 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS A MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO S . 370 & 371 / PNJ/ 201 4 , DATED 22 /01 /2015. 2. NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF T HE REVENUE . 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF NON - PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEE 10,00 0/ - UNDER THE HEAD SELF ASSESSMENT TAX , AND ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEL A Y IN FILI NG THE APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE 2 MA NO. 05 & 06 /P A N/201 6 IS SUBMITTING THAT THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DEL A Y AND CHALLAN OF PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEE, WHICH CANNOT M A K E THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ERRONEOUS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE MISC. APPLICATION IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MISC. APPLICATION. THE SUBSEQUENT ACT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY, AS NO ERROR HAS BEEN POINTED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE MISC. APP LICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5 . IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON FRIDAY , THE 1 6 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN ) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 6 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. R. VENUGOPAL, HOTEL ASHOK, SY NO.66/1, SOLAPUR ROAD, OPP. BLDE NEW CAMPUS, VIJAYAPUR. . 2 . THE REVENUE. IT O , WARD - 1 (3) , BELGAUM . 3 . THE CIT, BELGAUM. 4 . THE CIT(A), BELGAUM. 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI