YUKSOME ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD. Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Yuksome Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
GEORGE MATHAN,JM. -
(1.) S .P.No.41/Kol./2014 is a Stay Petition filed by the assessee in the assessee's appeal in ITA No.1501/Kol/2013 for Assessment Year 2003 -04
(2.) SHRI Subash Agarwal, Advocate, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri David Chawngthu, ACIT (Sr.DR) represented on behalf of the Revenue.
(3.) IT was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is doing business of contract work in Sikkim. It was the submission that the assessee was also filing its return of income and paying taxes. It was the
submission that notice u/s 148 of the IT Act had been issued to the assessee on the basis of survey
conducted u/s 133A of the Act in the case of one M/s. Manakamna Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. It was the
submission that the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act by the JCIT, Range -2, Siliguri u/s 144
of the Act read with 147 on 27.12.2007. It was the submission that consequently the assessee had filed a
writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim against the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. It was
the submission that after the demand notice was served on the assessee the assessee has been granted
stay by the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim. Subsequently the Hon'ble High Court had passed order dated
01.09.2009 directing the assessee to appear before JCIT with the various details. When the assessee appeared he was directed by JCIT to file necessary appeal before ld. CIT(A). Miscellaneous Application had
been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim seeking further directions which was also withdrawn by
the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 11.05.2010 after a delay of 832 days.
The appeal was originally dismissed by ld. CIT(A) as the appeal fees was not paid. The appellant had
approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had vide its order restored the issue to the file of
ld.CIT(A) to re -decide the appeal and to re - adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay. It was the
submission that the ld. CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings dismissed the assessee's appeal without
condoning the delay of the assessee in filing the appeal. It was the submission that consequently the
substantial demand raised in the assessment order of nearly Rs.68,91,889/ - is being pressed for recovery.
It was the submission that he had no objection if the appeal of the assessee was restored to the file of ld.
CIT(A) for re -adjudication on merits if the Tribunal was of the view that the delay was on account of
reasonable cause. It was the submission that the assessee may be granted early hearing of its appeal.
In reply the ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) having adjudicated the matter and not condoning the delay there was no question of granting any stay to the assessee. It was, however, submitted by the ld.
DR that he had no objection if the appeal of the assessee was disposed of at an early date.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.