No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘G’ BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON’BLE&
order
: January 9, 2020 ORDER
PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JM
The instant appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) – 29 Mumbai u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the ITO-19(3)(4), Mumbai for A.Y. 2011-12.
The addition u/s 69C to the tune of Rs. 13,13,196/- has been challenged before us.
At the time of hearing of the instant appeal none appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any adjournment has been sought for. However, upon perusal of the records, it is found that the order impugned dated 16.03.2018 was received by the assessee on 10.04.2018 but the appeal had been filed before the registry on Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Super Tech Industries 10.08.2018. Thus the appeal had been admittedly filed beyond the period of 60 days prescribed under the statute. Further that no application for condonation of such delay has been preferred by the assessee before us. Section 253(5) empowers the Appellate Tribunal to admit an appeal even after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting the same within the period. Since no application for condonation of such delay explaining the sufficient cause for not presenting the same before Tribunal, we are unable to admit the instant appeal. Further that from the fact of non appearance even at the call, on behalf of the assessee it can be presumed that the assessee is not interested to proceed with the matter. Records further reveals that the matter was earlier adjourned twice since none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, in the absence of the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee explaining the sufficient reason for such delay, we are unable to proceed with the matter since it is barred by limitation. Hence the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.