9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee only. Moreover, before the AO as well as the CIT(Appeals) the assessee has not appeared even inspite of issuance of twelve notices by ld. CIT(Appeals). All these acts are clearly establish that the assessee is not due diligence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to condone the huge delay of 2655 days. The condonation petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. - Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) For the Assessee : Mahadev Ghosh, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. CIT, D.R. ORDER The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 30th December, 2016 passed for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief facts of the case are that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written submissions and does not represent the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 30th December, 2016. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. 5. The appeal is time barred by 2655 days. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition saying that she had handed over the appeal papers to one Shri Tapas Kumar Majumder, who is practicing Advocate, but he did not file the appeal. Thereafter she engaged another Counsel namely Shri Ashok Chatterjee, FCA, but he has not filed the appeal. Subsequently she handed over to another counsel and he filed the appeal with a delay of 2655 days. 7. I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative that there is a huge delay of 2655 days and before the ld. Assessing Officer the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the ld. Assessing Officer regarding the claim of deduction. He further submitted that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the ld. CIT(Appeals) has given twelve adjournments, but there was no response from the assessee to substantiate her claim. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT with a huge delay of 2655 days. Therefore, the attitude of the assessee clearly establishes that she has not pursued with her Counsels about filing of the appeals. Thus, it indicates the gross negligence on the part of assessee. There is no sufficient cause to condone huge delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
