Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA & SHRI O.P. KANT
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 29/02/2016 passed by the Leonard CIT(Appeals)-12, New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds:
1. Ld. CIT (Appeal) is erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming order of Assessing Officer without examining the facts of the case.
2. Ld. CfT(Appeals) is grossly erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in not commenting on the submission furnished by the appellant relying on various judgments u/s 69A under which addition was made as being ownership of the fund was never established by the Assessing Officer. 3. Ld. CIT(APPEALS) is also erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in on relying judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT. 50 1TR 1. Appellant has already discharged his onus by furnishing all the information which are available on record. 4. Appellant has every right to make, add, delete, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
At the outset, we may like to mention that the assessee was duly notified for hearing dated 28/11/2019 by way of notice issued through registered post. On earlier occasions for hearing dated 21/10/2019 and 12/09/2019 also, the assessee was notified by way of issue of notice through registered post. All those notices have not returned back. Despite duly notified for the hearing, neither anyone appeared for hearing on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment has been filed. In the circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was heard ex-parte qua the asseesee. On the date of the hearing, learned Departmental Representative (DR) also filed request for adjournment of the case to any other date, which was rejected.
We have perused the relevant material available on record. From the record, it is seen that the appeal is barred by 84 days and no condonation application has been filed by the assessee. Moreover, the delay in filling the appeal has not been adequately explained by the assessee in the affidavit filed by him. The assesee has declared that he is residing in Mumbai and came to know the impugned order on 12.06.2016. The assessee has not given any evidence of residing in Mumbai. More so, if the assessee is residing in Mumbai, then the assessee should have changed his jurisdiction under Income-tax to his current place. Mere statement that the assessee was not residing in Delhi is not sufficient to condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal. Further, the assessee has even not removed the defect of filing the application for condonation of delay, which was intimated to the assessee. 4. In view of above, the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation is dismissed as un-admitted. Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd February, 2020.