RAHUL S DODAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 27(3)(1), , MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2014-15
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.04.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless
Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15. Shri Rahul S Dodal
2
2. Notice sent to the Assessee has been returned back by the postal authority with the remarks “left” meaning thereby the Assessee is not situated at the address mentioned in Form No.36. From the impugned order it appears that though 4 notices for the dates of hearings in the first appellate proceedings were issued to the Assessee, however, the Assessee made no compliance; therefore, in the constrained circumstances the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal as an ex-parte and affirmed the assessment order, by passing the impugned order, which is under challenge before this Court.
Heard the Ld. DR and perused the orders passed by the authorities below and material available on record. From the appeal file, it appears that this appeal is also time barred by 508 days, however, the Assessee did not file any application for condonation of delay. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine, however, with liberty to the Assessee to seek recall of this order by establishing the reason for non-appearance, as well as by filing relevant application for condonation of delay.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.01.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.