9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, passed in I.T.A. No. 58/C of 1998, dated May 28, 2002 (annexure D), and the order in M.P. No. 35/C of 2002, dated September 13, 2002 (annexure F). The appellant-assessee is a partnership firm which has a dealership in Yamaha Motor Cycles and spare parts. The assessment of the firm for the year 1991-92 was completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness at Thiruvananthapuram and therefore nothing prevented the appellant from making personal appearance at least to present the detailed reason for not attending the case. In the above circumstances the first appellate authority disposed of the appeal on the merits. The first appellate authority noted that the ground taken in the appeal is wrong and illogical. It was observed that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Tribunal but the assessee has not explained the cause of delay to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. We have heard Sri P. Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri P.K.R. Menon, senior standing counsel for income-tax appearing for the respondent. Counsel for the appellant submits that there was a delay of only six days in filing the appeal and that the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the appeal was adjourned on so many occasions. The Tribunal after considering all the aspects took the view that the appellant had not satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay of six days. We find that the assessing authority and the first appellate authority had clearly stated that the assessee had not produced any material whatsoever to show that the gross profit on motor vehicles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
