BAPURAO RAMKISHAN KAGNE,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 739/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 October 2022AY 2008-094 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 observed that the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient and the doctor's certificate did not explain the delay. Given the inordinate delay and the assessee's failure to appear, the tribunal did not condone the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT's order under section 263 with a delay of 1807 days. The assessee cited lack of awareness of provisions and a back pain issue as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to insufficient reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena - CIT
Hearing: 26/07/2022Pronounced: 17/10/2022

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad, dated 26.02.2014 for the A.Y. 2008-09 under section 263 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT was not justified by giving direction to the AO to give consequential effect to the order by adding back contract receipts of Rs.17,93,686/- to the total income of the assessees.

2. The learned CIT erred in making giving direction to the AO for further enquiry in respect of TDS to be deducted on DG Rent payment, rather the DG Rent payment to single person does not exceed Rs.1,20,000/-

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT was not justified in disallowing Rs.23,269/- (ground is not forced).

A.Y. 2008-09 BapuraoRamkishanKagne(A)

4. The appellant leave to add, after, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal

on or before the date of final hearing.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner of Income tax Aurangabad had passed an order u/s 263 of the Income tax Act for AY 2008-09 in the case of the assessee on 26/02/2014. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT, the assessee had filed appeal before this tribunal. The assessee is a proprietor of Sai Electricals and Electronics.

3.

As per Form 36 filed by the assessee, there is delay of 1807 days in filling appeal before this tribunal against the order of CIT u/s 263.

4.

None appeared for the assessee. Earlier the case was scheduled for hearing on 11/08/2020, 28/08/2020, 23/09/2020, 04/11/2020, 23/12/2020, 17/02/2022, 24/05/2022, and none appeared on behalf of the assessee, no adjournment letters were filed on-behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee.

5.

It is observed that there is delay of 1807 days. Assessee has filed a notarized affidavit. The assessee gave following reasons in the affidavit: -Not aware of the provision after professional advise filed the appeal. -Assessee was suffering from low back pain since last few years. Assessee enclosed Doctor Certificate dated 12/07/2018. A.Y. 2008-09 BapuraoRamkishanKagne(A)

6.

We have studied the affidavit. There is inordinate delay of 1807 days. As per the assessee the appeal should have been filed before 26/04/2014 but it was filed on 08/05/2019. The assessee had attached a Doctor’s certificate dated 12/07/2018, this certificate does not explain the delay as the last date to file appeal was 26/04/2014 i.e. four years before the date of the certificate. Not aware of the provisions of the Act is not sufficient cause to explain the inordinate delay. The Assessee has failed to explain the delay. There is no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. When we analyze the affidavit along with the fact that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee even after so many opportunities by the Tribunal explains that the assessee is not interested in the appeal. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there was no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. Hence, the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →