DARYAPUR SHETKARI SAHAKARI GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

(2.) By these applications, the assessee seeks condonation of delay in filing appeals under Sec. 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(3.) The facts relevant for considering the applications are that for the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer issued an assessment order dtd. 23/12/2008 by assessing the income of the assessee under Sec. 144 read with Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). Similar orders were passed for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeals as filed came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing further appeals. On 1/2/2013 the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals on the ground that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee which indicated that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. It further observed that if the assessee filed a miscellaneous application explaining the reason for non-appearance, such application would be duly considered. After dismissal of the appeals, the Tax Recovery Officer issued a notice on 19/11/2019 seeking to attach the immovable properties of the assessee. After receiving that notice, the assessee on 30/12/2019 filed separate miscellaneous applications before the Tribunal seeking restoration of each appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. During pendency of those proceedings, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act was passed and with a view to seek benefit thereunder the assessee approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1521 of 2020. On 18/3/2020 this Court directed the Tribunal to consider the applications for condonation of delay as well the applications for restoration of the appeals in accordance with law expeditiously. Pursuant thereto on 20/3/2020, the Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay by holding that there was no specific provision under Sec. 254(2) of the said Act on the basis of which such delay could be condoned. As a result, the applications for restoration of the appeals also came to be dismissed. Thus in these circumstances the assessee has filed three appeals under Sec. 260-A of the said Act challenging the initial order dtd. 1/2/2013 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeals on account of absence of the assessee along with a prayer for condonation of delay of 3062 days.