TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... last known address. The appeal preferred before the CIT(A) was held to be time barred. As assessee has not explained as to why the assessee did not make any effort before the Assessing Officer to represent the case for filing the appeal on time before the learned CIT(Appeals). No material is produced before us to substantiate any contention raised before us - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.269 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 20-11-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Petitoner : Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. CM No.15983-CII-2015 1. Delay of 110 days in filing the pesent appeal is condoned. ITA No.269 of 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As such, the appellant had to clear the liability by raising loan at higher rate of interest. The situation worsened in April- May 2007 when the creditors forced the appellant to make the payment. Some of them had threatened him with dire consequences due to which he had to run from Nabha by leaving behind the assets and business there. As the appellant was unable to pay to the creditors, he filed a petition in the Civil Court at Nabha under the Provisional Insolvensy Act, 1920 with the prayer that he be declared insolvent and the accounts be settled between creditors and debtors. For the assessment year 2005-06, the appellant filed return of income on 21.9.2005 declaring total income of ₹ 1,83,917/- and agricultural income of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee 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. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- 3. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and perused the findings of the authorities below. It is not disputed that notice under section 143(2) dated 24.7.2006 was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter, justified in holding the appeal to be time barred and dismissed the same. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that even if notice was served by affixture, no sufficient time has been given to the assessee to represent the case before the Assessing Officer because only two days time was left after affixture of the notice on 24.11.2007 for proceedings before the Assessing Officer on 26.11.2007. However the assessee has not explained as to why the assessee did not make any effort before the Assessing Officer to represent the case for filing the appeal on time before the learned CIT(Appeals). No material is produced before us to substantiate any contention raised before us. We therefore, do not find any merit in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
