SRI JAYADEV COLLEGE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,KHURDA vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 57/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 May 2017AY 2006-073 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 observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals due to non-compliance with notices and failure to file condonation petitions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals belatedly for assessment years 1996-97, 1998-99, and 2001-02. Despite multiple notices, the assessee failed to file condonation petitions for the delays.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to file condonation petitions for significant delays in filing appeals, leading to their dismissal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Hearing: 16/05

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA Nos.57/CTK/2008
ITA Nos.69/CTK/2008
ITA Nos.70/CTK/2008

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos.57/CTK/2008: Assessment Year: 2001-2002 ITA Nos.69/CTK/2008: Assessment Year:1996-1997 ITA Nos.70/CTK/2008: Assessment Year: 1998-1999

M/s. Exim India Oil Company Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack Ltd., At: Tibarwal Nagar, Jagatpur, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. AAACE 3929 k (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : NONE Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Date of Hearing : 16/05/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16 /05/ 2017

O R D E R Per Bench: These appeals are directed against the separate orders of ld CIT(A)

Cuttack, dated 24.10.2007 for the assessment year 2001-02 and dated

16.11.2007 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99.

2.

When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of

the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed. On perusal of

the facts on record, we find that the assessee has filed appeals belatedly

as under:

2 I T A N o s . 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Y e a r : 2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o s . 6 9 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Y e a r :1 9 9 6 -1 9 9 7 I T A N o s . 7 0 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Y e a r : 1 9 9 8 -1 9 9 9 Assessment Year Days of delay 1996-97 1374 1998-99 1374 2001-02 1415

3.

Further, we also find that the assessee has not filed condonation

petition till date despite the issue of defect notice dated 9.1.2012 and

notice dated 27.2.2017 by the Registry to furnish the condonation petitions

in respect of the aforesaid appeals. Further, on 8.5.2017, notice was issued

by the Registry was returned unserved by the Indian Post with the remarks

“Item delivery attempted Door Locked intimation served”. We also

observe that the aforesaid appeals have been filed in 2008. From the above

conduct of the assessee, it is inferred that the assessee is not serious in

pursuing the appeals by filing condonation petitions. Considering the

apparent facts and materials on record, we are of the considered view that

the assessee has not complied with the notice by filing the condonation

petition irrespective of the fact that more than nine years have passed.

Therefore, we dismiss the appeals of the assessee as unadmitted.

4.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as

unadmitted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16 /05/2017 in the presence of parties. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Cuttack; Dated 16 /05/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS

3 I T A N o s . 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Y e a r : 2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o s . 6 9 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Y e a r :1 9 9 6 -1 9 9 7 I T A N o s . 7 0 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Y e a r : 1 9 9 8 -1 9 9 9 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Exim India Oil Company Ltd., At: Tibarwal Nagar, Jagatpur, Cuttack 2. The Respondent. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A) Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →