SUBHASH M. PAWAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 20(3), MUMBAI

In ground no.1, the assessee has challenged the validity of re– opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Whereas, in ground no.2 the assessee has 2 Shri Subhash M. Pawar challenged the addition of ` 6,30,228, as perquisite under section 17(2) r/w rule 3(7)(i).

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of the order sheet entries, it it is noticed, on several occasions when the appeal was fixed for hearing earlier, the assessee did not appear in spite of the issuance of hearing notices through registered post with A/D. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material on record.

As could be seen from the record, there is a delay of four days in filing the present appeal. In spite of issuance of a defect notice by registry to explain the delay, the assessee has not cared to file any application or affidavit explaining the cause of delay. At least, on a careful perusal of record, we have not come across any such application filed by the assessee explaining the cause of delay. Therefore, the defects pointed out by the Registry still exist. That being the case, the appeal filed by the assessee being defective cannot be admitted for adjudication on merit and has to be dismissed in limine. Accordingly, we do so.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.08.2019