M/s Nirvana Business Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore V. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore

ITA 1077/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5508 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T (TP) A NO. 1077 / BANG/2 0 1 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 04 - 05 ) M/S.NIRVANA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 777 D, 100 FEET ROAD, HAL 2 ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560038. PAN:AABCN 5508 L VS. APPELLANT ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCL3 - 12(2) BENGALURU. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PADAMCHAND KHINCHA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT(DR). DATE OF HEARING : 18/1 2 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 / 02 /201 8 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, BENGALURU, DATED 30/11/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DEL AY OF 935 DAYS. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) WAS SERVED ON THE APPE LLANT ON 30/11/2011. THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 29/0 1/2012. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 21/08/2014 RESULT ING IN THE DELAY OF 935 DAYS. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED PETITION FOR CONDONA TION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT, DULY NOTARIZED WHICH READS AS UNDER: IT(TP)A NO.1077/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 4 IT(TP)A NO.1077/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 4 3. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE DELAY H AD OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE APPELLANT , CONSEQUENTLY THE EMPLOYEES DESERTING THE COMPANY ETC. IT ALSO STATE S THAT THE APPELLANT HAD COME TO KNOW OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS ) ONLY AFTER RECEIPT OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ORDER ON 15/03/2013 BUT THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED ON 21/0 8/2014 LEAVING A DELAY OF 524 DAYS, WHICH REMAIN UNEXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE APPELLA NT IS PLAUSIBLE, BONAFIDE AS THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY BETWEEN THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) AND THE ACTUAL DATE OF FILING THIS APPEAL WHICH IS MORE THAN ONE Y EAR. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE PERS ON WHO FINALLY TOOK A DECISION TO FILE PRESENT APPEAL COULD NOT TAKE THI S DECISION AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS). THE RE LIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI VS. DY.CIT (398 ITR 250) DOES NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 SD/- SD/- ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BENGALURU. D A T E D : 26/02/2018 SRINIVASULU, SPS IT(TP)A NO.1077/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE