Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Vineet Singh Construction Company Pvt. ... vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 28 June, 2024
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर ायपीठ, रायपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
ी रिवश सूद, ाियक सद एवं ी अ ण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
(ITA No.239/RPR/2024)
(Assessment Year:2012-13)
Vineet Singh Construction Company V Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Private Limited, Kashyap Complex, s Range-1, Aayakar Bhawan,
Indudyan Chowk, Jarhabhata, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, 495001,
Bilaspur, 495001, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh
PAN: AJXPD4157D
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) . ( थ / Respondent)
.
िनधा रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA
राज की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 28.06.2024
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of : 28.06.2024
Pronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi, (in short "Ld. CIT(A)"), for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which in turn arises from the penalty order u/s 271D of the Act passed by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, (in short "Ld. AO") dated 26.03.2017.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
2 ITA No.239/RPR/2024Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, lad. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is not justified in upholding the penalty order when the Ld. Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction in the assessment order.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is not justified in upholding the penalty order which is illegal, bad-in-law and without jurisdiction as penalty proceedings was barred by limitation as prescribed u/s.275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming imposition of penalty of Rs.31,00,000/- under section 271 D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for which there is no satisfaction recorded in the assessment order.
4. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts.
5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or omit all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice.
3. At the very beginning of the hearing in the present case, it was pointed out by the registry that the appeal under consideration is barred by limitation, which is filed with delay by 371 days. When the defect was confronted to the Ld. AR, he placed before us an application along with affidavit of the assessee stating the reasons for delay, that order of Ld. CIT(A) was uploaded on the Income Tax portal on 20.03.2023, however, the employee of the company, who was looking after accounting work had logged into Income Tax Portal on 02.05.2024 for downloading form 26AS for FY 2023-24, which was required for finalizing books of account and while downloading the said form, he came across the appellate 3 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited order passed u/s 250 of the Act, and the assessee was informed about the said order on the same day, therefore, the delay has occurred. It is the submission that the delay was for reasons beyond appellant's control, and therefore, the assessee is requesting to file condonation for delay considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances. For the sake of completeness of facts, copy of request for condonation of delay along with affidavit by the assessee is extracted as under:
4 ITA No.239/RPR/2024Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 5 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 6 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 7 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 8 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited
4. Ld. AR also submitted before us a written synopsis consisting of facts of the case inter alia request for condonation of delay along with a list of various case laws expounding principles supporting condonation of delay and contentions qua the merits of the case. The written synopsis submitted by the Ld. AR is extracted as under:
9 ITA No.239/RPR/2024Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 10 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 11 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 12 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 13 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited 14 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited
5. To decide whether the appeal of the assessee is maintainable or not on account of delay in filing of the appeal, the issue is confronted to the Senior Departmental Representative (in short "Sr. DR"), against which Ld. Sr. DR had strongly opposed the condonation of delay requested by the assessee, stating that in the present case delay involved is inordinate i.e., 371 days, there was no plausible explanation by the assessee to show that the delay was beyond control of the assessee, it was only on account of lackadaisical approach of the assessee. Ld. Sr DR also drew our attention to form 35 i.e., the appeal memo before the first appellate authority, wherein the assessee himself has opted that notices / communication may be sent 15 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited on his Email ID [email protected] specifying "Yes" in the specified field. The appellant was also unable to establish that such order was not served on his Email ID, therefore, the delay was totally on account of callous approach of the assessee, accordingly, such assessee should not be rewarded by allowing condonation of delay.
6. We have considered the rival submissions regarding delay involved in filing of the present case on perusal of the submission of the assessee, it is emanating that the assessee itself has opted for communications through Email ID for which Email ID [email protected] was provided and in the field asking response regarding "Whether notices / communications may be sent on Email ID?" Appellant has opted as "Yes". The Plea of the appellant that the order was uploaded on 20.03.2023 in the Income Tax Portal but the employee of the company who was entrusted with the responsibility has come across such information only on 02.05.2024 while dealing with the ITBA Portal for some other Income Tax Work, is incomprehensible and cannot be subscribed to as the same cannot be construed to be a sufficient cause beyond the control of assessee. Such approach of the assessee cannot be summarily accepted in absence of any plausible explanation for the delay involved therefore, the conduct of assessee found to be under lackadaisical approach and therefore, the inordinate delay of 371 days involved in the present case does not merit acceptance.
16 ITA No.239/RPR/2024Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited
7. Adverting to the submission of the assessee, wherein plethora of case laws were relied upon by the assessee, however the main case laws pointed out are No. 4 (Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107) and No. 24 (Shakti Steel Trading vs. The Asstt. Commissioner (ST) WP No. 4122 & 4255 & 4256 (Madras HC)). All such case laws were dealt with by the tribunal in its earlier orders dealing with the issue of condonation of delay which were further approve by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, therefore, in absence of any further explanation by the assessee other than the explanations by the assessee's in the earlier cases before the tribunal, we do not see any reason to decide the matter of condonation of delay in the present case differently than the same were decided in its earlier orders. Under such facts and circumstances, the request of the assessee for seeking condonation of delay stands rejected.
8. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with at length by the SMC Bench of this ITAT, Raipur in the case of Satish Kumar Agrawal vs. ITO-2(1) in ITA No. 53/RPR/2024 dated 23.04.2024, wherein the observations of the tribunal are as under:
14. I shall now deal with the judgments/orders as had been pressed into service by the Ld.AR in his attempt to support his contention that the delay involved in filing of the appeal be condoned, as under:
(A) Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2019) taxmann.com 134 (SC) 17 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court the revenue had not refuted the claim of the assessee raised that it had no knowledge of the passing of the order by the Tribunal dated 29.12.20 until June 2008, which, thus, had resulted in a delay of 1754 days in filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. Unlike the facts involved in the present case, the Ld. DR had vehemently controverted the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the delay in filing the appeal had occasioned because he was at the relevant point of time taken unwell. Rather, the Ld. A.R despite specific directions in the case of the present assessee had failed to place on record any material that would substantiate the claim of the assessee that it was due to his ill health at the relevant point of time that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. As the facts involved in the present case are distinguishable, therefore, the same would not carry the case of the assessee further.
(B) Smt. Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. ITO, ITA No.704 to 727 (Viz)/2019, 73 to 75 (Viz)/2020 dated 27.04.2021.
In the aforesaid case before the Tribunal, the assessee had remained under the bonafide impression that her appeal had been filed by the accountant but had learned about the same having not been filed only when the department took recourse to recovery proceedings. It was thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the Tribunal had condoned the delay that was involved in filing the appeal by the assessee before them. However, in the present case, except for the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the delay in filing had occasioned due to his ill health, nothing had been available on record that would conclusively establish the bonafide of the said explanation of the assessee. As the facts involved in the present case are distinguishable as against those involved in the aforesaid case relied upon by the Ld. A.R., therefore, the same would not carry the case of the assessee any further.
(C) Pepperazzi Hospitality (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No.448/Ahd/2020 dated 08.04.2022 18 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited The Tribunal in the aforesaid case after considering the bonafide of explanation of the assessee before them of having remained unaware of the fact that the CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal, thus, for the said reason, had condoned the delay that had crept in the filing of the appeal before them. Also, the Tribunal had observed that the department had neither refuted the contention of the assessee not placed on record any material which would prove to the hilt that the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) was duly served upon the assessee and was well within his knowledge. It was, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts wherein the bonafide of the assessee was neither in any clout of doubt nor refuted by the department that the delay involved in filing the appeal was condoned by the Tribunal. However, in the present case before me, I am afraid that not only the explanation of the assessee that the delay in filing the appeal had occasioned due to his ill health is not supported by any evidence proving the same, but rather his non-cooperative conduct before the ower authorities does not inspire any confidence as regards the veracity of the reason given by him to explain the delay involved. In fact, Ld. D.R. had objected to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee on the ground that the same had occasioned due to a lackadaisical approach adopted by the assessee.
(D) Sandhya Mallick Vs. ITO (2022) 220 TTJ 403 (CTK-Trib) The Tribunal in the aforesaid case before them, had observed that the appeal before them was delayed by the assessee due to inaction on the part of his counsel. The Tribunal had observed that the assessee had learned about the order of the CIT(Appeals) only when she was called upon to explain why penalty may not be imposed upon her regarding the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order which had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals). Thus, as it was for duly established bonafide reasons that had resulted in the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee the Tribunal had condoned the same. However, in the present case, nothing had been made available on record that would conclusively establish the bonafide of explanation of the assessee that the delay in filing the appeal had occasioned due to his ill- health. Once again, I may herein observe that the 19 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited lackadaisical approach of the assessee before the lower authorities also does not inspire any confidence as regards the veracity of the unsubstantiated reason given by him to explain the delay involved. As the facts involved in the present case is distinguishable, therefore, the same would not carry the case of the assessee further.
(E) Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Roa Vs. DCIT (2020) 120 taxmann.com 427 In the case before the Hon'ble High Court the assessee had on the matter having been remitted by the Pr. CIT to the file of the A.O. u/s. 263 of the Act for reframing the assessment, had failed to file the appeal against the order of revision as he had remained under a bonafide belief that now when the matter was restored to the file of the A.O for reframing the assessment, thus, the appeal was required to be filed challenging only the consequential order that would be passed and not the revisional order. However, the assessee on realizing his mistake after having consulted his advocate had filed the appeal with the Tribunal. It was, thus, in light of the aforesaid bonafide reason which had resulted in to delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal with a direction to hear the appeal afresh on merits per law. However, the case of the present assessee smacks of his lackadaisical approach and callous conduct, which can safely be gathered from the orders of the lower authorities, i.e. AO/CIT(Appeals) who were constrained to pass ex-parte orders. As the facts involved in the case law relied upon by the ld. AR are distinguishable, therefore, the same would not carry the case of the assessee any further.
(F) Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst Katiji (1987) 167 471 (SC) Apropos the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (supra), the same being distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the captioned appeal before me, thus, would not assist his case. The Hon'ble Apex Court, stressing upon considering a "sufficient cause" by the Courts, while deciding as to whether the delay involved in the filing of the appeal merits to be condoned, had observed that 20 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited the said term employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice which is the life purpose of existence of the institution of courts. At the same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court had, while observing that the courts should do even-handed 2024 justice on merits in preference to the approach that scuttles a decision on merits, had inter alia, held that an appeal or any application may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are culled out as follows:
"1. Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period."
(emphasis supplied by me) As in the case of the present assessee appellant before me, there is a delay of 17 days involved in the filing of the appeal by the assessee appellant, the reason for which he had failed to conclusively establish based on any clinching material, and the same appears to be attributable to the callous approach and lackadaisical conduct which he had adopted not only at the stage of filing of the appeal before me but also had consistently adopted before both the lower authorities, therefore, the judgment mentioned above of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (supra) would not carry his case any further.
15 . I have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid facts, and would once again reiterate that though the delay in filing the appeal may not be inordinate, it is the absence of a bonafide explanation of the assessee regarding the reasons that had resulted to delay in filing the appeal; read in the backdrop of his conduct before both the lower authorities, i.e the A.O and CIT(Appeals), who due to non-prosecution of 21 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited the matter by the assessee before them were constrained to pass ex-parte orders, that I am of a firm conviction that the delay in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee does not merit to be condoned. In case, if the delay is condoned based on an unsubstantiated claim in the case of the present assessee who had not even participated in the proceedings before the A.O. and the CIT(Appeals), then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for others to follow. My aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Tax Case No. 86 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while dealing with identical facts where the assessee appellant who had neither participated in the assessment proceedings before the A.O nor appeared before the CIT(Appeals), had approved the declining of his application for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under:
"9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
10. From perusal of the documents available on record, it transpires that as per the information obtained from the Annual Information Return, it was observed by the AO that though the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 34,67,700/- in his savings bank account during the year under consideration but had not filed his return of income. As the assessee failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the source of the aforesaid cash deposits, the AO reopened his case under Section 147 of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, though the AO had issued several notices to the assessee but he did not comply with the same. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act dated
16.12.2018, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.34,67,700/- after treating the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.34,67,700/- as the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As the assessee had failed to participate in the course of the proceedings 22 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering material available on record.
11. Though the AO had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to represent his case, it was the assessee who, for reasons best known to him, despite being well informed about the ongoing assessment proceedings, had not only failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the said proceedings. Also, the assessee had failed to file any reply to the notices that were served on him during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the A.O., in the absence of any return of income and also any explanation forthcoming about the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, who had chosen to lie low and neither participate in the assessment proceedings nor furnished any reply to the notices that were issued to him, thus, was constrained to treat the cash deposits of Rs.34,67,700/-(supra) as the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, and framed the best judgment assessment vide his order under Sections 144/147 of the Act vide its order dated 16.12.2018. Even before the CIT(Appeals), the conduct of the assessee was no better than that he had adopted during the assessment proceedings. Although the CIT(Appeals) afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee to put up his case on merits before him but he had once again adopted an evasive approach and on no occasion, participated in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) has given proper opportunity to the assessee to participate in the hearing. Four notices were issued to the assessee informing the assessee about the date of hearing but the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(Appeals) taking notice of the fact that the assessee had adopted an evasive approach and, despite being well informed, had not only chosen not to participate in the proceedings before him but also, despite sufficient opportunities, had not placed on record any submissions whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise to substantiate his claim that the A.O had erred in treating the cash deposit of Rs.34,67,700/- in his bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, thus, upheld the order passed by the AO under Sections 144/147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2018.
12. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the conduct of the assessee remains the same as was there before the learned CIT(A) and the 23 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited A.O. The appeal filed by the assessee before the learned ITAT involves a delay of 166 days. On a careful perusal of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal, the reason that the bonafides of the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee cannot be gathered from the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. The facts that can be gathered from the aforesaid application of the assessee are, viz. (i) the assessment order was passed by the A.O on 16.12.2018 and was issued on 29.12.2018 without any reasons for keeping the same with him; (ii) reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act were not supplied to the assessee by the A.O; and
(iii) appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) vide an exparte order dated 29.03.2023 etc.
13. Under section 69A of the Act, what is provided is that if an assessee is found to be the owner of any money, jewellery or any other valuable articles and such money is not recorded in the books of account and fails to offer any explanation about the nature and source thereof or in case any such explanation, if offered, is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO, then it may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Ultimately, therefore, it would be dependent on the nature of the explanation submitted by the assessee and the satisfaction of the AO about the acceptability thereof, which is the sine qua non for invoking the provisions contained in section 69A of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the proceedings. In absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee as regards the delay in filing of the appeal, his request for condonation of the same, when read in the backdrop of his conduct before the authorities below cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it. There is no substance in the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the appeal was due to bonafide reasons, as the same clearly smacks of the lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the appeal read with the conduct of the assessee appellant before the AO and the CIT(Appeals), the request of the assessee for condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal does not merit acceptance.
14. The learned ITAT, vide paragraph 12 has observed that "In fact, if I condone the delay involved in the present case where the assessee had not 24 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited even participated in the proceedings either before the A.O or CIT (Appeals), then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for the times to come. ..."
15. As has been rightly relied on by the learned ITAT that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah, reported in 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the expression "sufficient cause"
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as the assessee appellant in the present case is habitually acting in defiance of law, where he had not only delayed in filing of the present appeal but also had adopted a lackadaisical approach and not participated in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, there can be no reason to allow his application and condone the substantial delay of 166 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. Now, when in the present appeal the appellant / assessee had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, we hereby dismiss the present appeal upholding the reasons assigned by the learned ITAT.
16. Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed."
Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh in its order passed in the case of M/s BPS Infrastructure Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, Tax Case No, 87 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024, after relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah, reported in 1972 AIR SC 749 and Ramlal, Motilal, and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd reported in AITR (1962) 361 (SC), had approved the order of the Tribunal which had declined to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal.
16. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations am unable to persuade myself to condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, who as observed by me hereinabove had consistently as a matter of habit 25 ITA No.239/RPR/2024 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited evaded his participation in the proceedings before both the lower authorities and also delayed the filing of the present appeal without any justifiable reason. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations, decline to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal before me.
9. We, thus, in light of the aforesaid decision by the tribunal which was under
binding guidance of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Tax Case No. 86 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024, and M/s BPS Infrastructure Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, Tax Case No, 87 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024, therefore, respectfully following the mandate of law accorded by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, in absence of any justifiable reason or sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal in the present case, we reject the condonation request of the assessee, wherein the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any substantial clarification to support the application for condonation elaborating in the backdrop of sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the exorbitant delay of 371 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, we decline to condone the same and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case, dismiss appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation.26 ITA No.239/RPR/2024
Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited
10. In the result, without dealing with the merits of the grounds raised in the present case, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/06/2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAVISH SOOD) (ARUN KHODPIA)
ाियक सद / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 28/06/2024
Vaibhav Shrivastav
आदे श की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant-
2. थ / The Respondent-
3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A),
4. आयकर आयु / CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
// स या पत त True copy //
आदे शानु सार/ BY ORDER,
(Assistant Registrar)
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur