AASTHA MINIMET INDIA LTD,BENGALURU vs. ACIT.CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 385/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 October 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 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 noted the assessee's negligent attitude and failure to comply with procedural requirements, including the absence of a delay condonation application and non-appearance. The Assessment Order was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and the CIT(A) had also passed an ex-parte order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order with a delay of 1527 days. Despite repeated defect notices from the Tribunal registry regarding the lack of a delay condonation application, the assessee failed to file one. The assessee also did not appear before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee, with a significant delay and without a condonation application, should be entertained by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & PADMAVATHY SR

For Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Hearing: 15.10.2024Pronounced: 15.10.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of CIT(A) dated 31.10.2019, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2013-14.

2.

There is a delay of 1527 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has not filed a delay condonation application in spite of the defect notice issued by Registry stating that no delay condonation application has been filed. The first defect notice was issued from the Office of the ITAT on 07.03.2024 and second was issued on 11.06.2024. The defect notices were sent to the assessee’s email ID and postal address provided in Form 36. This appeal was posted number of times. Neither the assessee nor the AR of the assessee appeared before the Tribunal. Assessee seems to have a very negligent and nonchalant attitude. We find that the Assessment Order has been completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Further, we notice that in spite of several hearing opportunities provided to the assessee by the CIT(A), assessee had appeared only once i.e., on 19.09.2018. Therefore, CIT(A) also has passed an ex-parte Order. On the facts of the instant case, since assessee has not even filed a delay condonation application in spite of repeated defect notices issued from the Office of the Tribunal, we reject the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 1527 days in filing the appeal before us. Therefore, we refrain from adjudicating the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →