MARYA DAY AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD.,BAREILLY vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BAREILLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 145/LKW/2022Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee neither appeared during the hearing nor filed any application for condonation of delay, as the appeal was beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 253(3) of the IT Act. Concluding that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's original assessment for AY 2017-18 was completed under Section 143(3), accepting the declared income. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT revised this order under Section 263, setting aside the assessment for de novo framing, against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the revision order of the Pr. CIT was maintainable, given that it was filed beyond the statutory time limit and the assessee failed to appear for prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 253(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

2017-18 against impugned order dated 25/03/2022 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1041510243(1) passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act.

(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee’s main business is trading, sale, purchase and export of frozen meat of buffalos and raw meat in domestic market. In this case, assessment order dated 17/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the I. T. Act. The income declared by the assessee in return of income, amounting to Rs.1,60,34,220/- was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid assessment order, and no addition/disallowance was made. The assessment order was revised by learned Pr.CIT by way of impugned order dated 25/03/2022 passed u/s 263 of the I. T. Act. In the aforesaid impugned order of Pr.CIT, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was set aside, to be framed de novo as per law. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) During the course of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, we heard learned Sr. Departmental Representative and perused the materials available on record. At the very outset it was noticed that the Registry of this office has pointed out that the appeal filed by assessee is beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has not submitted any application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. We find that proper notice of hearing has already been sent to the assessee through RPAD which has not come unserved. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such we hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. We order accordingly.

(D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/05/2025)

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →