MAHAVIRPRASAD ATMARAM GOEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1906/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 August 2019AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and his son requested withdrawal of the appeal due to unavailability of records and payment of the entire demand. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 578 days, attributing it to old age and ill health. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as unadmitted, finding no sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee is now in further appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the assessee's legal heir.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh – Ld. DR

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.

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

In the above circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →