BANK OF BARODA,BHARUCH vs. THE JT. CIT (TDS), VADODARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal noted that the appellant did not appear for hearings and did not file any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal could not be admitted.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the appellant against a penalty order under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14. The appeal was filed late by 252 days.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal and the absence of a condonation application, leading to the appeal's inadmissibility.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&
O R D E R
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:
The instant appeal filed at the instance of the appellant is directed against the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara-5 (in short ‘CIT(A)’), arising out of penalty order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Jt.CIT (TDS), Baroda, under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14.
The appeal is barred by limitation for 252 days. None appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of the matter being listed for several occasions and service of notice by RPAD. Upon (Bank of Baroda vs. JCIT) A.Y.– 2013-14 - 2 – perusal of the entire set of records, we also find that neither the appellant has filed any application for condonation of delay in support of the appeal filed before us late as mentioned hereinabove, thus, it appears that the assessee is also not interested to proceed with the appeal. However, as the application for condonation of delay in support of late filing of the appeal not filed by the appellant for getting the appeal admitted upon such condonation of delay, in the absence of such application, we are unable to admit the appeal. The same is, therefore, rejected on the ground of barred by limitation.
In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed.
This Order pronounced on 20/03/2024
Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 20/03/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
More judgments on Section 271C
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2), MumbaiITA 5318/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Teampumkin Corporation, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer (TDS)-2(3)(2) Mumbai…ITA 5281/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026