BANK OF BARODA,BHARUCH vs. THE JT. CIT (TDS), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8/AHD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 March 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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?

Section 271C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Appellant: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18/03/2024Pronounced: 20/03/2024

O R D E R

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →