YVONNE SEQUEIRA, PUNE V. ITO 26(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1246/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79106 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CAPT PRADEEP ARYA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'G' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1245 TO 1247/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04) YVONNE SEQUEIRA D C I T - 26(2) C2-21 APARTMENT FLAT NO. 02, SECTOR - 16 VASHI 400703 VS. MUMBAI PAN - ABWPS5014R APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: CAPT. PRADEEP ARYA DATE OF HEARING: 09.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.06.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A )-28, MUMBAI. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE ORIGINALLY POSTED FOR HEARING ON 15.10.2013 BY ISSUING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADJ OURNED FROM TIME TO TIME BY INFORMING FRESH DATES THROUGH NOTICE BOARD AND F INALLY THE APPEALS WERE POSTED FOR HEARING ON 09.06.2014. HOWEVER, ON THIS DATE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO D ISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS EXPARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DEL AY OF 111 DAYS IN FILING THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE A PPEALS FILED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION FOR M ORE THAN 20 MONTHS AND FOR WANT OF PROPER EXPLANATION THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE APPEALS AS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. EVEN BEFORE US THERE WAS A DELAY OF 111 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATIN G THAT RECENTLY DURING A MEETING WITH THE UNION LEADERS ALL THE WORKERS, INC LUDING THE ASSESSEE HEREIN, WERE INFORMED BY TAX EXPERT/LAWYER THAT THE PENALTIES LEVIED ARE NOT ITA NO. 1245 TO 1247/MUM/2011 YVONNE SEQUEIRA 2 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE APPEALS AND THEREFORE IMMEDIATE ACTION WAS TAKEN TO PREFER THE APPEALS. T HIS AFFIDAVIT WAS DATED 2 ND JANUARY, 2011. IN FACT THE VERIFICATION IN FORM NO . 36 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO FILE THE APPEALS ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ITSELF AND PAID THE INSTITUTION FEES ON 21.12.2010. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CHOSEN TO FILE THE APPEALS, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY THE RE IS FURTHER DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE SIGNED A S 29.11.2010 AND THERE IS NO EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO FURTHER DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEALS AFTER SIGNING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND PAYING THE INSTITUTION FE ES. IT ALSO DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT EVEN FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE FIRST APPEAL THE ASSESSEE GIVES SIMILAR EXPLANATION, I.E. HE WAS UNDER THE GENUINE BELIEF THAT THE PENDING TAX ISSUES WERE HANDLED BY THE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES. WHEN THAT BELIEF IS PROVED TO BE WRONG, EVEN AT THE STAG E OF FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT IS VERY DI FFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE STILL HOLDS THE SAME BELIEF. AT ANY RATE, NO REASON WAS ASSIGNED WITH REGARD TO FURTHER DELAY AFTER PREPARING THE AF FIDAVIT ON 2 ND JANUARY, 2011. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION AND, THEREFOR E, DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH JUNE, 2014. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 9 TH JUNE, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 28, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 26, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.