M/S NAGESH ENTERPRISES vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPELAS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. L. MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA I.T.A. No. 5001/2013 A/W I.A. No. 1/2013 BETWEEN: M/s Nagesh Enterprises, 569, Patil Galli, Belgaum, represented by its partner Smt. Rekha P. Lamji, Age: years, Occ.: business, R/o Patil Galli, Belgaum. - Appellant (by Sri Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate) and 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, 3rd Floor, Feroz Khimjibhai Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Belgaum, 3rd Floor, Feroz Khimjibhai Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum. - Respondents

: 2 : This appeal is filed u/S 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against order passed in ITA No.152/PNJ/2008 dated 08.04.2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. I.A. No.1/2013 is filed u/S 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 521 days in filing the appeal. This appeal along with I.A. No.1/2013 coming on for orders this day, K.L.MANJUNATH, J, delivered the following:- JUDGMENT 1. There is a delay of 521 days in filing the present appeal. Revenue had filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench in 152/PNJ/2008 for the assessment year 2005-2006. In the said appeal the appellant herein had filed cross objection in M.A. No.10/PNJ/2011. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee by its order dated 08.04.2011. The present appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the rejection of the cross objection by the Tribunal. 2. In the appeal filed by the Revenue notice was served upon the assessee on 26.11.2008. The Cross

: 3 : Objection was filed on 25.01.2011 with a delay of 790 days. Before the Tribunal no application was filed by the appellant herein to condone the delay of 790 days in filing the cross objection. The Tribunal has dismissed the cross objection only on the ground that there was no reasons for it to condone the delay in the absence of an application filed by the appellant herein to condone the delay. Therefore, the present appeal is filed. 3. Now also there is a delay of 521 days in filing this appeal. We have seen the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay and we are not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay of 521 days caused in filing the appeal. 4. Be that as it may, even if the delay is condoned in the present appeal, since the appellant had not filed an application to condone the delay before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in filing the cross-objection, no purpose would be served in entertaining the appeal.

: 4 : Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without condoning the delay.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE bvv