9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ger was transferred and the new manager taken over charge. The learned AR was specifically asked when the new manager became aware of the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T.Act. Though the learned AR had sought time and we had repeatedly granted adjournment, there is no information on the part of the AR for these queries raised by the Bench. The conduct of the assessee is such that there was clear negligence on its part and there is no equitable ground or substantial cause for condoning the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is correctly dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal before him. For these reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 61,913/- u/s 201(1) of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant denies itself liable to pay a sum of ₹ 16,097/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal of the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: There was a survey u/s 133A of the I.T.Act in the Head office of the assessee bank. It was noticed during the course of survey that the assessee bank had allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed timeline. Hence, the pertinent question is whether there was any delay in filing of the appeal and if so whether the same has been satisfactorily explained. In the case at hand, there was an extraordinary delay of 636 days in filing appeal. The appellant s reasons for the delay as seen above are not satisfactory. On careful consideration of all aspects of the issue, it is observed that the appellant is negligent in filing the appeal resulting in delay. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Ltd. and another ITA No.3555/Del/2009 Asst.Year 2002-03 (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC) and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned AR was specifically asked when the new manager became aware of the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T.Act. Though the learned AR had sought time and we had repeatedly granted adjournment, there is no information on the part of the AR for these queries raised by the Bench. The conduct of the assessee is such that there was clear negligence on its part and there is no equitable ground or substantial cause for condoning the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is correctly dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal before him. For these reasons, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 8. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
