NEW GLOBE LOGISTIK PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO - WD2(3) (3) , MUMBAI

ITA 1757/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4869 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1757/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2014-15) New Globe Logistik Pvt.Ltd (Now known as New Globe Logistik LLP) 44, Khatau Building Shahid Bhagat Singh Road Fort, Mumbai-400 023 PAN : AAACN3625M Vs. ITO-2(3)(3) Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Usha Shrote Date of Hearing 07.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 08 .04.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, dated 29.10.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal read as under:- ON JURISDICTION: 1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ["the Ld. AO" for short] is bad in law and void and the said order deserves to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. ON MERITS: 2.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 22,60,000/- being club membership fees paid to Cricket Club of India as non-genuine and non-business related expense. 2.2 While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: (i) the said expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business which has worldwide presence; ITA No.1757/Mum/2021 2 (ii) the said claim was appropriately made by the Appellant in accordance with law, satisfying all the requisite conditions; and; (ii) the said claim was disallowed by the AO on an erroneous understanding of the law which was confirmed by the C1T(A) based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations while ignoring the relevant and material considerations and evidences in this regard. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law no such disallowance was called for. 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 626 days in filing the appeal. No reasonable cause for the delay or condonation petition is submitted. ITAT registry has duly noted vide dated 15.02.2022 that there was 626 days delay and assessee was to remove defect within 10 days. No removal of defect is on record. Assessee was issued notice by RPAD dated 11.03.2022, for hearing on 05.04.2022. Shri Nishith Gandhi appeared on behalf of the assessee. He undertook that he shall be submitting the condonation petition in two days time. Accordingly, the appeal was fixed on 07.04.2022. When the appeal was called upon the adjournment petition has been filed on behalf of the assessee, wherein following has been submitted:- “With reference to the above appeal, we most respectfully request Your Honour to kindly grant us a short adjournment of the hearing as there are certain defects pointed out in the appeal. However, the defect notice was provided to the assessee only on 05.04.2022 at 3 pm i.e. after the first date of hearing after request. A copy of the same is enclosed. As such we need some time to rectify the said defects. Further, the briefing chartered accountant of the Assessee is unavailable at such short notice. As such, we need time to compile the necessary details and documents for the purpose of the present appeal and also briefing our counsel on the same so as to effectively represent the present appeal. We sincerely regret the inconvenience caused.” 4. I note that shri Nishith Gandhi assessees counsel was present on 05.04.2022. He was aware of the defect and submitted that the condonation petition shall be submit in two days time. Now in the letter, the assessee shows total ignorance of the fact that the condonaiton petition was required. This is on the cusp of conduct requiring imposition of exemplary cost. But, I am restraining myself from imposing the cost. ITA No.1757/Mum/2021 3 5. Be as it may since, it is substantial delay with no explanation thereof, the assessees appeal stands dismissed in limine as time barred. Pronounced in the open court on 08 .04.2022. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 08/04/2022 Thirumalesh, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai