Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI PAWAN SINGHShri V. Justin (DR) PER PAWAN SINGH:
Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income Tax Act (‘the Act’) is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai, [for short the ld. CIT(A)] dated 18.02.2011 for Assessment Year 2006- 2007. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
A) Addition as per TDS certificate - Rs.46,67,080/-
1. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Mumbai [CIT(A)] erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the Income Tax Officer -10(3)(4), Mumbai (AO) making an addition of Rs. 46,67,080/- on account of difference in contractual receipts as per the TDS certificate and as per the Profit and Loss account on the alleged ground that the appellant had understated its income.
2. The appellant prays that your honours hold that the income as shown by the appellant in its books of accounts as well as in the return of income was the actual receipt and that the addition of Rs. 46,67,080/- made by the AO on this account and confirmed by CIT(A) may be deleted. B) General 3. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of Pharmaceutical trading, filed its return of income for relevant Assessment Year on 24.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,530/-. The assessment was completed on 24.12.2008 under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order besides the other addition/disallowance disallowed Rs. 46,67,080/- on account of difference in labour charge. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
None appeared on behalf of assessee, when the appeal came up hearing. Perusal of record reveals that assessee filed this appeal on 38.05.2012. The assessee sought adjournment on 17.12.2013 and again on 19.06.2014., after that the assessee stopped his appearance. The notice through RPAD was served upon the assessee for the date fixed on 18.05.2016 and again for 18.05.2017, which were duly served as AD card of the notice served on the assessee is available on record. However, when the assessee appeared on 18.09.2017 again sought adjournment and the appeal was adjourned for 22.11.2017 and thereafter assessee has not appeared on 01.02.2018 and again on 12.04.2018. Today neither the assessee nor his representative appeared. We left no option except to decide the appeal after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and the material available on record. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the present appeal is barred by time and same 2 M/s Svizera Labs Pvt. Ltd. should be dismissed in limine. The assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay.
We have considered the submission of ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record of the case. We find that the impugned order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 18.02.2011. The assessee in column-9 of appeal Form No. 36 has mentioned that order was communicated (received on 25.03.2011). The present appeal was filed on 28.05.2012. The Registry has issued defect memo to the assessee on 31.05.2013. Despite the service of defect memo regarding delay in filing appeal.
The assessee has neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor came forward to explain the fact related with the issue raised in the present application. Considering the fact that assessee has failed to explain the reasons for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and dismissed in limine.
In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th day of April 2018.