SHARWAN LAL BAIRWA C/O- CA SS SHEKHAWAT, UTSAWA, A-25, SHRI RAM COLONY, RAM NAGAR, EXTN. SODALA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2) JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 695/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 July 2021AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the non-cooperative conduct of the assessee throughout the proceedings. Since no sufficient cause was provided for the delay, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 1140 days. The assessee failed to remove defects and did not file any application for condonation of delay with supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is maintainable due to a significant delay and lack of condonation application. The conduct of the assessee during assessment and appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 695/JP/2019

Hearing: 23/06/2021Pronounced: 14/07/2021

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)- 3, Jaipur dated 01/12/2015 for the A.Y. 2007-08, wherein following grounds have been taken by the assessee. “1. The ld. A.O. not allowed deduction U/s 54 of Rs. 12,66,336/- before computing Long term capital gain liability against the provision of law.

1.

2. The ld. A.O. taken cost of the sold land as Zero against the provision of Act while the same was allotted being 25% of the compulsory acquired land under ‘SEZ’.

3. The ld. A.O. finalized the order of ¼ share of Shri Sharwan Lal Bairwa while the assessment of all his three brothers were made at NIL demand by accepting deduction U/s 54 for the sale and construction of the share of same properties.

2 ITA 695/JP/2019_ Sharwan Lal Bairwa Vs ITO 4. The assesse craves to make addition, rectification, correction, modification, alteration, ground of appeal on or before final hearing of appeal.”

2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic.

3.

At the outset, from the record, we noticed that there is delay of 1140 days in filing the present appeal before us. In this respect, specific defect memo has already been issued to the assessee vide notice dated 25/02/2020, 30/09/2020, 01/10/2020 etc. but even in spite of that, defects have not been removed by the assessee and no application for condonation of delay has been filed on record.

4.

Since there is a huge delay of 1140 days in filing the present appeal, therefore, it was incumbent upon the assessee to file separate application for seeking condonation of delay by mentioning there in sufficient cause. Not only any application has been filed but no affidavit or any supporting evidence has been filed for seeking condonation of delay. Even we want to place on record that the conduct of the assessee remained non-cooperative throughout the assessment proceedings as the assessment order in the present case was also passed U/s 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and even no evidences were filed before the ld. CIT(A) during the pendency of first appellate proceedings. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case 3 ITA 695/JP/2019_ Sharwan Lal Bairwa Vs ITO more particularly non-cooperative attitude of the assessee, we dismiss the present appeal as the same is time barred.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →