MANOJ KUMAR MOHANTY,CUTTACK vs. PR.CIT-1, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 149/CTK/2022Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 November 2022AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application due to the advocate's lack of authorization and the assessee's prior non-compliance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to comply with the proceedings before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 157 days, which was condoned. However, an advocate appearing for the assessee without proper authorization filed an adjournment application, which was rejected. The assessee had also been non-compliant with notices issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices and the advocate's lack of proper authorization to seek adjournment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Hearing: 22/11Pronounced: 22/11

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr.CIT, , Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1, dated 1.2.2022 1.2.2022 in in Appeal No.ITBA/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 /Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1039259782(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The appeal is delayed by 157 days for which, the assessee has filed The appeal is delayed by 157 days for which, the assessee has filed The appeal is delayed by 157 days for which, the assessee has filed condonation petition. The reasons given by the assessee condonation petition. The reasons given by the assessee condonation petition. The reasons given by the assessee are not found to be false. Consequently, the delay is condo onsequently, the delay is condoned.

P a g e 1 | 3

3.

At the time of hearing, an advocate under the name of Partha Sarathi Mohanty filed an adjournment application. He was not in uniform. He does not have Voklatanama in the appeal. The Voklatanama is in the name of Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Duryodhan Rana and Abdul Muqid. Consequently, the adjournment application is rejected and the appeal disposed of.

4.

Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

5.

A perusal of the order of the Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 shows that notice in respect of proceedings u/s.263 had been issued to the assessee through e-mail through ITBA platform on three occasions. The first one was issued on 10.8.2021 fixing the date of hearing on 8.9.2021. On account of non-compliance, the second notice was issued on 10.11.2021 fixing the hearing on 26.11.2021. Again on account of non-compliance, third notice was issued on 14.12.2021 fixing the date of hearing on 23.12.2021. Again there has been non-compliance. Admittedly, once evidence had not been produced before the lower authorities, no evidence can be considered by the Tribunal. It is also not possible to restore the appeal to the file of the Pr. CIT as it is a matter under section 263 and proceedings would be hit by limitation if the same is restored. This being so, as the assessee has been non-compliant before the Pr. CIT and as the Pr. CIT has given adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in respect of proceedings initiated u/s.263, and as it is noticed that the P a g e 2 | 3 assessee has been non-compliant in the proceedings before the Pr. CIT, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed.

1.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22/11/2022. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 22/11/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Prop. M/s. Mahavir Filling Station, At: Subhadrapur, Gopalpur, Dist: Cuttack 2. The Respondent: Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 3. The CIT(A)- 1, Bhubaneswar 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →