TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces, we concur with the view of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee could not demonstrate that, it was prevented by sufficient cause, in filing this appeal within the time stipulated under the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). In none of the cases as relied it has been laid down that in each and every case, condonation has to be granted as a matter of rule. Unlike in the cases cited, the basic reason cited by the assessee in this case is found incorrect. Hence there is a factual difference. In this case, the department has produced evidence to prove that notice u/s 156 was dispatched along with the assessment order to the assessee. As already noted the very ground on which the assessee based its entire case for condonation of delay fails and consequently we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No: 1197/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant by : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate For The Respondent by :Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to appreciate that assessee has not slept over the matter and the judgment relied on by him are totally inapplicable. 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the addition made to income of Rs. ₹ 2,33,91,260/- otherwise is untenable in law as had been held by Hon ble ITA T and Hon ble HC for the preceding years where similar additions made have been deleted, and as such the addition made of ₹ 2,33,91,260/- as interest income ought to have been deleted . 2. Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal by 47 months. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, submitted that : a) The assesee is a PSU Company; b) It was not served with a notice of demand and hence, it did not filed the appeal, as it was under bonafide belief that no appeal can be filed without the notice of demand; c) The assesee company had not filed appeal within 30 days from the date of service of the order of assessment, since it did not receive the notices of demand and as it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . M/s. Sartorious Mechatronics India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA Nos. 982 to 984/Bang/2013 dated 27.3.2015 5. Ld. DR Shri Vikram Sahay on the other hand opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that, this bench of the Tribunal had directed the department to file evidence regarding the service of notice of demand u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the assessee, after verification of the record. He filed copies of letter of ACIT range XIX, New Delhi dated 8.7.2015, wherein a letter of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle XIX, New Delhi dated 8.7.2015 was enclose and copy of the income tax computation form and notice of demand u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act and copy of speed post acknowledgement date 17.11.2006 was filed. He argued that the AO has confirmed that copy of the assessment order along with the computation form and demand notice showing nil demand was dispatched by speed post on 17.11.2006 to the assessee. He argued that these papers are being filed on the directions of the bench and the entire base on which the assessee rested its case is demolished by these papers. He further submitted as follows :- a) At page 43 of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for the assesee, not to file an appeal. 7. Rival contentions heard. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and a perusal of the papers on record and the orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows. 8. The revenue in this case has stated that the notice of demand u/s 156 was served on the assessee along with the assessment order and computation form. Evidence of dispatch of the same through speed post on 17.11.2006 is produced before us. The assessee denies the receipt of the same, but is unable to controvert the documentary evidence produced by the revenue. When the document is sent by speed post and when the same is not returned to the sender by the postal department, the presumption is that it has been served on the assessee. Hence we presume that the notice of demand u/s 156 was served on the assessee along with the assessment order and computation form. Ld.Counsel for the assessee wanted the Bench not to take cognizance of these documents filed by the Revenue. We are unable to accept this submission. Ld. DR pointed out that these are filed only on the direction of the bench. We see no reason as to why these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
