KARROX TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 10(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1156/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2834 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B D NAIK
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1156/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 KARROX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. RANUK ESTATE, L.B.S. MARG, GHATKOPAR (WEST), MUMBAI-400086. PAN: AAACK0376Q VS. ACIT 10(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA SH AH (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI B.D. NAIK (DR ) DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2016 DATE OF ORDER : 22.06.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-21, MUMBAI, DATED 02.02.2011FOR AY-2002-03. 2. THE APPEAL IS ACCOMPANIED WITH AN APPLICATION FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY AND AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI DARSHAN SHAH, DIRECTOR OF ASS ESSEE-COMPANY. THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT DISCLOSED THAT IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 21.02.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRE D TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON OR BEFORE 21.04.2011. THE AFFIDAVI T FURTHER DISCLOSED THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS HUGE LOSS MAKING COMPANY AND TH E ACCOUNTANT TO WHOM THE WORK OF FILING OF APPEAL WAS ASSIGNED LEF T THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THUS THEY COULD NOT CONTACT THEIR COUN SEL. THE REGULAR 2 ITA NO. 1156/MUM/2012- KARROX TECHNOLOGIES LTD. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT (C.A.) DID NOT INFORM THE ASSE SSEE TO FILE THEIR RIGHT NOR FILED THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED ANOTH ER COUNSEL FOR TAKING ADVICE AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED. THE SIMILAR CONTEN TS ARE REPEATED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR REVENUE. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT AND THE DECISION REF ERRED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PRAYED FOR TAKING A LENIENT VIEW WHILE CONSIDERING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. ON THE OTHER HAND, DR FOR REV ENUE STRONGLY OPPOSED THAT CONDONATION OF APPEAL THE APPLICATION AND ARGU ED THAT THE APPEAL BE DISMISSED AS NO SUFFICIENT GROUND IS DISCLOSED IN T HE AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE GROUNDS DISCLOSED IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE NOT SUFFICIENT ONE AND ARE ABSOLUTELY VAGUE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE DECISIONS REFERRED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE CONTENTION OF THE LD DR FOR REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE ACCO UNTANT, WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER THE FILING OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, LEFT TH E ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTACT THEIR COUNSEL. NEITHER THE NAME O F THE ACCOUNTANT IS NOT DISCLOSED NOR IS THE TIME WHEN THE SAID ACCOUNTANT LEFT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DISCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLEADED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THEIR REGULAR C.A. DID NOT INFORM THEM TO AVAIL THE RIGHT NOR GUIDED THEM TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY, NEITHER THE NAME OF THE C.A. IS REFERRED NOR THE NAME OF SUCH PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY ADVISED THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE REMEDIAL STEP IS DISCLOSED. ALL THE CONTENTS P LEADED IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE ABSOLUTELY VAGUE; NO SPECIFIC NAME OF THE PERSON IS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. AFFIDAVIT IS FILED IN A CASUAL MANNER. T HE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS APART FROM MAKING VAGUE PLEAS FAILED T O ADVERT ANY VALID REASON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS PER THE AFFIDAVI T FILED ON RECORD. NO DOUBT, THE COMPLIANCE OF LAW IS GENERALLY MADE THE PROFESSIONAL, SO THAT IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT WHILE ASSESSEE IS KNOW OF THE PROVISION FOR FILING 3 ITA NO. 1156/MUM/2012- KARROX TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IT IS NOT SO WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABLE PROCEDURE FOR FILING THE S ECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ENTIRE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IS FUL L OF LATCHES. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT DO NOT MAT CH WITH GROUNDS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN PROPER MANNER. ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISC LOSE AS TO WHEN THEIR ACCOUNTANT LEFT THE WORK OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY, WHO W AS THE REGULAR C.A., WHO DID NOT INFORM THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE APPEAL. AND WHAT STEP TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SUCH PROFESSIONAL, WHO HAD COM MITED, SUCH PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT. THE FACT PLEADED BY THE D EPONENT IN THEIR AFFIDAVIT DOES NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE. SO WE ARE NO T CONVINCE WITH THE GROUND PLEADED FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEAL. 5. SINCE NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY I S DISCLOSED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, HENCE, THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS DISMISS ED. AS CONDONATION OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED, DISCUSSING ON THE MERITS AND D EMERITS OF THE CASE BECOMES ACADEMIC. RESULTANTLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ADMITTED FOR ADMISSION AND THE SAME IS REJECTED BEING TIME BARRE D. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 22/06/2016 S.K.PS /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. !'# / GUARD FILE. $ //TRUE COPY/