M/S. TIRUPATI LAND DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 02-05-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad [‘CIT(A)’] for Block period ending on 30-11-1996.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 7 years 2 months and 29 days and to that effect an affidavit deposed by the Member of AOP by Mr. Suresh H. Vijay Vargiya filed. Upon hearing both the parties and on perusal of the affidavit, we note that this is a second round of appeal against the order passed u/s. 158BC of the Act for Block period ending on 30-11-1995, wherein we note that in the first occasion this ITAT remanded an issue to the file of AO regarding the addition of Rs.12,50,910/- on account of estimation of profit on sale of land. There is no dispute with regard to passing of giving effect order by the AO on 30-12-2008 of which according to ld. AR served on assessee on 02-01-2009. As on date of passing of such order by the AO an appeal lies to ITAT but, however, the assessee filed before the CIT(A). We note that on or after 01-01-1997 an order passed by the AO u/s. 158BC of the Act in respect of such cases could be filed before the CIT(A). Since, the Block period in the present case ending on 30-11-1995 and appeal lies to ITAT under sub-section (1) of section 253 of the Act. We note that the CIT(A) in the impugned order at Para No. 4 dismissed the appeal in limine by holding that the CIT(A) do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the order passed by the AO in respect of Block period ending on 30-11-1995. The assessee in the affidavit as referred above did not mention sufficient cause explaining the delay on day to day basis which prevented the assessee in filing the present appeal before the ITAT with a abnormal delay of 7 years 2 months and 29 days except making a statement, that due to misunderstanding of provisions of law, which, in our opinion, not acceptable for the reason as the assessee was vigilant in prosecuting its case before authorities below including this Tribunal in the first round of litigation. Therefore, the reasons stated in the affidavit does not constitute sufficient cause in explaining the delay. Therefore, we find no reason to condone the delay of 7 years 2 months and 29 days. Hence, the delay is not condoned.

In view of our decision in not condoning the delay, the issues raised in the appeal becomes infructuous and are dismissed as such.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.