ASHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1126/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 February 2017AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred and not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The appeal was filed one day late without a condonation application.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to being time-barred. The grounds of appeal related to trading additions, disallowance of expenses, and treatment of cash credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND

For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Hearing: 23/02/2017

PER BHAGCHAND, AM

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld.

CIT(A), Alwar dated 07-10-2016 for the assessment year 2009-10

raising following grounds of appeal.

‘’1. That the AO has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making a trading addition of Rs. 1.00 lac and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the same. 2.0 That the AO has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making a disallowance of Rs. 3,465/- out of Deepawali expenses and Rs. 7,689/- out of telephone expenses and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the same. 3.0 That the AO has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in disallowing the credits of Rs. 2,09,000/-

2 ITA No.1126/JP/2016 Smt. Asha Agarwal vs. ITO, Behror within the meaning of Section 68 of I.T. Act by treating the same as unexplained cash credits whereas the facts remains that the same are not in the nature of cash credits but are the security deposit against the sale of goods and refunded subsequently and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the same.’’

2.1 After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on

record, it is noted that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by one day

for which the assessee has not filed any conondation application in late

filing the appeal. Hence, in such a situation, the appeal filed by the

assessee is not maintainable. Thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 /02/2017. Sd/- ¼HkkxpUn½ (Bhagchand) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23 /02/ 2017 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Asha Agarwal, Behror, Alwar izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO,Behror 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A). vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1126/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →