RANJANA BHAVESH CHAVAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly. On perusal of case file, I noticed that as per endorsement the registry notice to the assessee Ranjana Bhavesh Chavan, Mumbai. through RPAD as well as through email on 30.01.2025 on the address mentioned by the assessee in Form No. 36 filed before the Tribunal. Since RPAD has been sent on the correct address intimated by the assessee, as more than 30 days have already elapsed, therefore, presumption can be drawn that the notice has been validly served. Apart from this email on the address has already been served to the assessee. Thus in this way the service has already been effected upon the assessee.

Since, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. Therefore assessee is proceeded ex-parte. On the other hand, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore I have decided to proceed the hearing of the case ex-parte.

At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of 265 days in filing the present appeal before ITAT and in this regard defect notice has already been issued by the registry the assessee point out that there is delay in filing the present appeal. But even then no application or documents have been filed by the assessee for seeking conodonation of delay. Therefore in these circumstances, the present appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation and is thus dismissed on this count itself.