Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 459 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay Held that:- CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee has neither filed any application for condonation of delay, nor has made any ground of appeal regarding the condonation of delay - assessee has not given any reason as to why the appeals were filed late and hence, the appeals were liable to be dismissed, as time barred there was no reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by more than one year could be given on behalf of the assessee - there is no reason to disbelieve the panchnama dated 2.1.2009 in support of the claim of the department that the both the assessment orders were served by affixture on 2.1.2009, after the assessment orders were dispatched by speed post on 31.12.2008, and were received back by the department from the postal authorities - the CIT(A) has validly dismissed the appeals. Initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and 148 of the Act Held that:- The CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned speaking order on the issue - the assessments for AY 1994-95 and 1995-1996 were reopened u/s 147 with prior approval of the JCIT and the notice u/s 148 was served on the son of assessee, Shri Devang Sachdev - the reasons recorded by the AO while reopening the assessment proceedings u/s 147 were communicated to the assessee and the assessee could not file any objection - the assessee was from the very beginning aware of all the developments - department has served the notice by affixture at the last known address of the assessee and copy of the panchnama was filed before the CIT(A) by the AO - There is no material to doubt the genuineness of the panchnama regarding service of notices - there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) on the issue that the grounds of the appeal are meaningless and dismissed as raised without any basis, and the notices were validly served as stated by the AO in the remand report and the orders have also been served as detailed in the orders of the CIT(A). It is not a case where the assessee was not given opportunity to prove the source of credit entries by the AO and the CIT(A) - The assessee has not even filed confirmation letters from most of the creditors - the onus is on the assessee to prove the identity and credit-worthiness of the creditors and also genuineness of the transactions - the assessee has miserably failed to discharge its onus cast on it under the statute and could not establish the identity and credit worthiness of creditors and genuineness of the transaction - the CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned speaking order on the merits of the case, and the assessee could not controvert even a single line Decided against Assessee.
|