Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2005-06 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-12/ITO6(3)(1)/18/09-10 dated 22/12/2010 on certain grounds of appeal, When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared for assessee. No valid adjournment application is on record and therefore, the appeal is proceeded with ex-parte qua the assessee.
2 Mahavirprasad Atmaram Goel Assessment Year :2005-06 One of grievance raised by the assessee is that Ld. first appellate authority refused to condone the delay in filing of appeal.
Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident individual was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 31/12/2007 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.75.02 Lacs after certain additions / adjustments as against returned income of Rs.44.15 Lacs filed by the assessee on 29/09/2005.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal against the same before Ld. first appellate authority however, with a delay of 578 days. The assessee attributed the delay to old age, falling health etc. and pleaded for condonation of delay. The Ld. first appellate authority, observing that initially the assessee chose not to prefer the appeal against the quantum order but later on, upon initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), preferred the appeal. Upon further consideration of factual matrix, Ld. first appellate authority reached a conclusion that the assessee could not make out a case of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, being unadmitted. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Upon careful consideration of material on record, we find that the assessee has already expired and his son Shri Anish M.Goel, vide letter dated 29/04/2019, has pleaded for withdrawal of the appeal on account of the fact that the concerned records are not available with him and secondly, entire demand of Rs.11.96 Lacs has already been paid by him.
In the above circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.