SELVI WINES,MADURAI vs. ITO WARD 4, VIRUDHUNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1041/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 December 2018AY 1996-973 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 dismissed the appeal in-limini due to the delay in filing and the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was duly notified of the hearing date.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm's appeal for AY 1996-97 was filed with a delay of 57 days without a condonation petition. The assessee also failed to appear for the hearing and had previously failed to appear before the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's failure to appear before the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 11.12.2018

आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-

1.

This appeal raised by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 (i/c), Madurai dated 28.11.2017 in for the assessment year 1996-97 passed U/s. 250(6), r.w.s.,144 of the Act.

2.

The assessee firm has raised the following grounds in its appeal:-

1) That your appellant could not obtain the certified copy of the penalty assessment order U/S 271(1)b till 2009 from the Assessment officer within the time limit and was served only after issue of direction by the CIT-1I Madurai against the proceedings U/S 264 were undergoing for the Ay. 1996-97. 2) That your appellant was issued copy of Assessment order which has been completed U/S 144 expartie by the A.O for the Ay.1996-97 with huge additions which are liable for cancellation as per the remand order passed by the previous Hon'ble CIT Appeals-Il Madurai. 3) That your appellant opined that they could get major relief of their tax liability for the Ay.1996-97 by way of Appeal Disposal Order and hence did not pay the tax and penalty for the Ay. 1996-97. 4) The CIT Appeals has violated the Principle of natural justice and equity by passing the present appeal order for the Ay.1996-97 without considering the ITAT's order under for Ay.1996-97 permitting admission of their appeals before the CIT (Appeals) Madurai.

3.

At the outset we find that there is delay of 57 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and the assessee has failed to file condonation petition for the delay before us. Further at the time of hearing neither the representative of the assessee nor the assessee appeared before us to pursue the appeal. From the records we also noticed that the assessee was intimated about the date of hearing by Registered Post and the receipt of the same was duly acknowledged by the assessee’s representative. It is also noticed that the assessee had also failed to appear before the Ld.AO and the Ld.AO had passed ex-parte order U/s.144 of the Act. From these facts and circumstance of the case, we do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Therefore we hereby dismiss the appeal of the assessee in-limini.

4.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on the 11th December, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →