2015 (12) TMI 280 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissed appeal upheld for inordinate delay without cause. Valid notice via affixture. Timely representation crucial.

Sh. Ramesh Chand, S/o Sh. Ramm Parkash C/o Banarsi Dass Ram Chand New Grain Market, Versus The Income Tax Officer, Nabha

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the inordinate delay in filing without reasonable cause. The notice served through affixture was ... Time barred appeal - non serving of notice as submitted by assessee - Held that:- It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal in its order that notice under section 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee on 31.7.2006. The assessee did not appear. He left the premises without giving further address to the department. Thereafter, for further proceedings before the Assessing officer, notices were served through affixture at the last known address in the presence of two witnesses of the same locality. Still the appellant did not appear. Ex parte assessment order and demand notice were also affixed on the last known address. The appeal preferred before the CIT(A) was held to be time barred. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Validity of notice served through affixture.2. Adequacy of time given to the assessee for representation before the Assessing Officer.3. Justification of dismissal of the appeal by the learned CIT (Appeals).Issue 1: Validity of notice served through affixtureThe appeal was filed against an order for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee, who derived income from a rice sheller, failed to attend the assessment proceedings despite notices being served. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, making additions to the income due to various reasons. The assessee contended that no sufficient time was given before the completion of the assessment. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to an inordinate delay of about 2 years in filing the appeal without reasonable cause. However, the Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The notice was served through affixture as the assessee had left without providing an address. The learned CIT (Appeals) upheld the service of notice through affixture, stating that it was valid as per law. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned.Issue 2: Adequacy of time given to the assessee for representation before the Assessing OfficerThe assessee argued that insufficient time was given to represent the case before the Assessing Officer after the notice was served through affixture. The counsel for the assessee claimed that only two days were left for proceedings before the Assessing Officer after the notice was affixed. However, the assessee did not make any effort to represent the case before the Assessing Officer within the given time frame. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, as the assessee failed to substantiate any contention regarding the lack of time for representation.Issue 3: Justification of dismissal of the appeal by the learned CIT (Appeals)The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, as the notice and assessment order were served through affixture. The counsel for the assessee did not raise any other grounds on merit. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the learned CIT (Appeals) due to being time-barred, as no reasonable cause was explained for the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was consequently dismissed.In conclusion, the judgment dealt with the validity of notice served through affixture, the adequacy of time given for representation before the Assessing Officer, and the justification of the dismissal of the appeal by the learned CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements and timely representation in tax assessment proceedings.