Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders related to AY 2018-19. One appeal was against a revision order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, and the other was against an order from the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel sought adjournments for both hearings, citing professional commitments. The tribunal noted that the appeal was time-barred by 465 days.
Held
The tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment applications, stating the reasons were vague and unsubstantiated. The tribunal also noted that the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period without proper explanation and that the grounds themselves were not maintainable. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals are maintainable due to delay and lack of proper grounds. Whether the adjournment requests were justified.
Sections Cited
263, 250, 143(3), 36(1)(ii), 36(1)(iii), 80P(2)(a)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Ankur Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : has been filed by the assessee against the revision order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-5 [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. Pr. CIT”] vide order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2022-23/1051431096(1) dated 27.03.2023 passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2018-19 and has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi passed u/s. 250 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066728714(1) dated 15.07.2024 for AY 2018-19 & 1847/Kol/2024 Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2018-19 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ankur Goyel, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
First, we take up ITA No. 1846/Kol/2024.
It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the consequential order to the order passed u/s. 263 has been passed on 13.03.2024. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed an adjournment letter which reads as follows:
& 1847/Kol/2024 Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2018-19 4. the appeal filed by the assessee is also time barred by 465 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which reads as follows:
As it is noticed that the reasons given by the Ld. AR for the adjournment is vague and is not supported by any evidence the adjournment application stands rejected.
& 1847/Kol/2024 Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2018-19 6. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that this appeal has been posted on multiple occasions and there has been only requests for adjournment. Further, as mentioned by the Ld. Sr. DR, the consequential order has also been passed and effectively, this appeal against the order u/s. 263 has become academic.
Coming to the issue of the delay of 465 days. Admittedly, the condonation of delay petition has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and not by the assessee himself. The Ld. AR for the assessee has transferred the responsibility of the delay on the assessee and there is no affidavit from the assessee explaining the delay. Consequently, the condonation of delay petition being unsubstantiated as also unsupported, we have no other option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee on account of delay and we do so. Further, a perusal of the Form No. 36 filed in the details of the appeal in clause 3 reveals that it is mentioned that the appeal is against the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 13.03.2024. The said order is not part of the appeal papers. Even otherwise, an appeal against the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 lies to the Ld. CIT(A) and not to the Tribunal. On this ground also the appeal filed by the assessee becomes unmaintainable and is consequently dismissed.
Now, we take up ITA No. 1847/Kol/2024
The Ld. AR of the assessee has sought an adjournment mentioning the reasons as extracted above. The said reasons have been found to be unsubstantiated and rejected when disposing of the appeal of the assessee in of even date. On identical reasons the adjournment application filed by the Ld. AR stands rejected and the appeal is disposed of on merits.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:
10. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the grounds of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has been unable to produce any cogent evidence to dislodge the view as per the auditor’s report. Even before the Tribunal no papers have been filed to support the contentions of the assessee. Once the assessee has not filed & 1847/Kol/2024 Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2018-19 the evidence before the Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority obviously, such fresh evidence cannot be filed before the Tribunal. As the assessee has not filed the paper book also to support his claims, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stands upheld.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.