ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee bank is dismissed as unadmitted
ITA 1086/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2011-12 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Bank, Income Tax, Kadapa. Range - 2 Tirupati. Pan – Aamfa 8921A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Seshachalam Revenue By : Shri Pathlevath Peerya Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2018 Order Per D. Manmohan: This Is An Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee, A Cooperative Society. Penalty Levied By The A.O U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act @ 150% Of The Amount Sought To Be Evaded By Reason Of Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars, Was Confirmed By The Cit(A) & Thus The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Along With An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 178 Days. In The Affidavit Filed Along With Form- 36, The Chairman & Chief Managing Director Of The Assessee Bank Deposed As Under: “Our Appeal Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, For The A.Y 2011-12 Was Filed Before The Cit(A), Kurnool On 20.08.2014 & Was Duly Disposed Off & A Certified Copy Of The Appellate Order Was Also Served On Us. During The Process The Said Order Being Examined By Various
For Appellant: Shri G. SeshachalamFor Respondent: Shri Pathlevath Peerya
Section 271(1)(c)
section was not mentioned anywhere in the affidavit. The fact remains that the assessee requested the CIT(A) Kurnool to issue a certified copy of the order vide letter dated 07.06.2016 and a copy was in turn received on 16.07.2016. Since there was substantial delay, at least from the day of receipt of
4
Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank.
1086/Hyd/2016. certified