Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(Appeals)-34, Mumbai dated 11/03/2014, which pertains to the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has challenged the impugned order on the following effective grounds: “1. NATURAL JUSTICE 1.1 The learned Commissioner of income taxes (appeals) – Mumbai, “Ld. CIT (A)’ erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant while framing the appellate order. 1.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order so framed be held as bad and illegal, as:
(i) The same is framed in breach of the principles of natural Justice; and (ii) The same is passed without application of mind to the facts and the submissions brought on record by the appellant.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE
2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 10, 21, 395/– under the head “Income from other sources’’, against the capital gain declared by the Appellant, with respect to sale of the shares. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 2.3 Assuming – but not admitting – that any addition was called for, it is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the computation of the addition is not in accordance with the law. 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the ground with respect to non-granting of direction u/s 54 of the act, as claimed by the Appellant. 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Appellant was entitled for deduction under section 54 of the Act.
As per the record the present appeal was filed on 08.02.2016. The case was fixed for hearing for 15.3.1016, before the ‘D’ Bench. On 15.3.2016 when the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The registry informed that notice to the appellant/assessee was sent through registered AD on 19.02.2016 and the same has been received back undelivered.
The Ld. DR at the very outset pointed out that the present appeal is barred by law of limitation as there is an inordinate delay of 552 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.
On perusal of record we are satisfied that the notice to the assessee was sent by RPAD to the address mentioned in the relevant column of Form No 36 i.e., memorandum of appeal. It appears that the appellant is no more interested in pursuing the present case. We are, therefore, of the view that since the letter containing notice has received back un-delivered, it would be a futile exercise to send the notice again to the same address. Moreover, the appeal is barred by law of limitation and the appellant has not filed any application with the memorandum of appeal for condonation of delay. Hence, in our considered view, there is no need to go into the merits of the case. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for the statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th March, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated:15/03/2016