9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 3. At the outset, we find that there is delay of 400 days in filing of these appeals. Ld. AR furnished an affidavit explaining the reasons of delay in filing of these appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is duly supported by an affidavit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection against the delay condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay of 400 days in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1530/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) for adjudication. ITA No.1530/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 : 5. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that appeal is filed against order passed u/s 200A but no such order is filed along with Form 35 appeal memo. But only the default summary which only mentions the details of various demand pending in case of the assessee has been filed which is not an order passed by the Assessing Officer against which an appeal can be filed. As the appellant is required to file the copy of the appealable order against which the appeal has been filed and in absence of the same the appeal becomes defective liable to be rejected. Accordingly, with this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fees u/s 234E before Income Tax Officer, TDS- 2, Pune which itself contradicts the statements of the appellant-assessee. Accordingly, we find that the appellant-assessee was already in receipt of intimation about levy of fees u/s 234E on/before 12.07.2017 when rectification letter was furnished by him. Hence we do not find any substance in the contention of the assessee that he was unaware with the demand and intimation u/s 200A was not received by him. In addition to above fact, we also find that an identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee firm i.e. Kedar Infrastructure vs. ITO in ITA Nos.228 to 233/PUN/2023 order dated 05.04.2023, wherein, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case, the order of the ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee as infructuous, not maintainable is upheld. Since the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable, the ld.CIT(A)'s observations regarding merits of the case are outside the scope of the order. We do not intend to comment on the merits of the case. 3. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed. Ground No.2 : 4. Ground No.2 is regarding the merits of the case. No order under section 200A has been filed before us. No order under section 200A was filed before the ld.CIT(A). In the absence of basic document i.e. order under section 200A, we cannot comment on the merits of the case. Therefore, Ground No.2 is dismissed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
