SMT. POONAM PUJARI,ROURKELA vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 272/CTK/2019Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 August 2024AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on two grounds: delay in filing and non-production of evidence. The assessee failed to provide any reasons for the delay or evidence to support its claim regarding non-deduction of TDS on transport charges.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15. The assessee sought adjournment multiple times, and the appeal was listed for hearing over 21 times since 2019.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's repeated adjournments and failure to produce evidence, and whether there was sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 12/08/2024Pronounced: 12/08/2024

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Principal CIT, Sambalpur dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s 263 of the Act in Appeal No PCIT/SBP/2018/2028-19/ for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. None represented on behalf of the assesse, however, an adjournment letter is filed, which reads as follows:

3.

On behalf of revenue, Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld. CIT DR appeared.

4.

This appeal has been filed as early as in 9.8.2019. This appeal had been posted for hearing more than 21 times and the appeal had also been disposed of ex-parte on 12.10.2022. Vide an order in miscellaneous application No19/CTK/2023 dated 12.07.2024, the appeal had been recalled and the appeal was posted for hearing today.

5.

The learned counsel has also signed the order sheet as having been informed the date of hearing, which date was also chosen by the counsel. Now, again the adjournment is sought, which is nothing but a challenge to the functioning of the Bench. There is absolutely no intention shown by the assesse for having the appeal disposed off.

6.

From 2019 till date the assesse having been unable to get the details to represent its case, now seeking additional 20 days to get details from the accountant nothing but delay tactics. It is surprising as to how the details which have not been collected in the last 5 years is now being claimed to be collected in 20 days. This is an order u/s 263 and the consequential order giving effect has also been passed.

7.

Admittedly the issue in the appeal on merits is in regard to non- deduction of TDS in respect of the transport charges paid which are more than Rs.30,000/- . No evidence has been produced before us by the assesse nor has the assesse produced such evidence before the learned principle CIT. Further, the appeal of the assesse is delayed by 24 days for which affidavit of the assesse has been filed, wherein no reason has been given: The affidavit is follows:

Assessment Year: 2014-15 8. As no reason has also been provided for the delay in filing of the appeal, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed both on the ground of delay and on account of non- production of evidences in support of its claim.

9.

In the result appeal of the assesse is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →