Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru dated 18.12.2015 inter alia on the following grounds:-
“1. The order of the learned CIT (Appeal), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is opposed to law and facts of the case.
2. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in holding that the delay of 190 days is extraordinary and the Appellant failed in establishing and substantiating "sufficient cause” as required by the statutory provisions of the Act. The CIT(Appeal) failed to appreciate that the Appellant representative has filed dt. 28-12- 2013 mentioning about his bad health condition.
3. The CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate the number of days of delay is not the only criteria in condoning the delay and a delay of more than 5 years had been condoned by the Karnataka High Court. The decision of collector land acquisition V MST Katgi and others relied upon by the CIT is really in favour the Appellant rather than the revenue. 4. For these and other grounds of appeal that may be raised either before or at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the appeal. The order passed by the CIT (A) may be set aside with a direction to AO to accept the income returned.”
This appeal was listed for hearing on 30.06.2016, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of notice of hearing. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, I have no other option, except to hear the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee.
I have carefully examined the order of the CIT(Appeals) on all the grounds raised before us and find that the CIT(Appeals) has adjudicated all the grounds in detail in his order. Since no defect has been pointed out in the order of the CIT(Appeals), I confirm the same.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of August, 2016.