Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Assessment Year: 2003-2004 Shri Manoj Sharma v. The ACIT-1 S/o Shri J.S. Sharma Bareilly Swaley Nagar Bareilly TAN/PAN:AVCPS7127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 29 08 2024 Date of pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 4.10.2023, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bareilly for Assessment Year 2003-04.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31.10.2003, declaring a total income of Rs.3,05,418/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.10,53,040/-, as under: Income from Trading Rs.4,61,500/- Income from Contract Work Rs.5,80,181/- Interest income as shown Rs.11,355/- Total Rs.10,53,036/-
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte without granting due and proper opportunity of hearing and hence the order passed, deserves to be quashed.
2. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not dealing with the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and in dismissing the appeal in-limine.
3. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the order of assessment without dealing the merits of addition made by the Assessing Officer.
4. Because the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), is suffers from error of law and is liable to be set-aside.
None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was filed on 19.06.2017 and since then the appeal has been adjourned on 25 occasions. Order sheet entry also indicates that this appeal has been filed belatedly and that there is a delay of 198 days in filing this appeal. Apparently, the assessee, for reasons best known to him, has not even filed any petition for condonation of delay.
Therefore, in view of the above cited facts, I deem it expedient to dismiss the appeal as un-admitted. However, the assessee is given the liberty to move an application for restoration of this appeal, if so advised, by filing an application as per the extant Rules and also accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay.
In the final result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/08/2024.