ASA DIAMOND JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3602/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves ASA Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against an order from the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was significantly delayed, filed 249 days late, and the company failed to appear in multiple hearings, showing a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The tribunal noted the absence of specific details or documents to substantiate the claim that the delay was due to the illness of one of the directors. Given these circumstances, the tribunal dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633509 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA RAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (AM) ITA No. 3602/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) ASA Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. 63 Megh Tower, Opp Royal Challenge Restaurant Film City Road, Goregaon East Mumbai-400 063. Vs. ITO Ward 12(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AAMCA5035A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Aditya Rai Date of Hearing : 02/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 11/06/2025 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain (JM) :- At the very outset, we noticed that none appeared when the case was called repeatedly. Even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed by the assessee. Which shows that assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal. On going through the case file we also noticed that today is the 11th opportunity and there is no justification for further adjournment. We also notice that there is delay of 249 days in filing the present appeal and moreover assessee was also ex parte before CIT (appeals) as well. Even otherwise Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte. 2. Assessee had moved an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. On going through the contents of the said application, we noticed that assessee is a private limited company and it has been mentioned in the application that one of the Director of the company was not keeping well and was suffering from ailment, therefore the appeal which was to be filed till 31.10.23 could not be filed within the prescribed ASA Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. 2 period. But in the entire application, no specific details have been mentioned by the assessee more particularly the date of knowledge and other important details. The assessee has not placed on record any document in order to show that the said Director of the company was ever admitted as indoor patient in any of the Hospitals. From the contents of the application, the assessee himself has admitted that the said Director of the assessee recovered from the illness in the month of August, 2023. However, still the appeal could not be filed within limitation. 3. The assessee has only taken a general plea to explain the reasons for delay. However, the said reasons mentioned in the application are not considered as ‘sufficient cause’ in condoning the delay. On going through the entire file we also noticed that no supporting affidavit has been filed by the assessee and moreover, the assessee was also ex parte before Ld. CIT(A) as well, which goes to show the ‘ casual and cavalier’ approach of the assessee in pursuing the Income Tax proceedings. Therefore keeping in view the contents of the application and the discussion made by us, we are of the view that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, application for seeking condonation of delay filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 4. Since we have dismissed the application for seeking condition of delay filed by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee also stands, dismissed in view of our above decision. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 11/06/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : ASA Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. 3 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS "