RATIKA FOUNDATION TRUST, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 2228/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8138 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI D. MANMOHAN , VICE-PRESIDENT AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM) , . , . . , ./I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2013 ( ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) RATIKA FOUNDATION TRUST, 5 JOLLY BHAVAN, NO.2, GROUND FLOOR, 7 NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME (EXEMPTION), 6 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 ( #$ / APPELLANT) .. ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT) # ./ '( ./ PAN/GIRNO.:AABTR5173L #$ ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE %&#$ * ) /RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR + , * -. / DATE OF HEARING : 7.10.2014 /'! * -. /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7.10.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2012 PASSED BY LD. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EX EMPTION), MUMBAI REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING REGIS TRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. (THE ACT). 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS SEEN FILED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT F IRM NAMED M/S PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA AND CO. HOWEVER, THE SAID C.A FIRM DID NOT FILE ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY, IF ANY, GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED BY THE ABOVE SAID C.A FIRM. I.T.A. NO2228/MUM/2013 2 ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL, EX-PA RTE, I.E., WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE NOTICE THAT THE REGISTRY HAS SENT A DEFECT ME MO POINTING OUT THAT THE COLUMN NO.9 OF FORM NO.36 WAS NOT FILLED-IN AND FUR THER THERE WAS A DEFECT IN THE PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS APPEAL FEE. HOWEVER, THE SAID DEFECTS HAVE NOT BEEN RECTIFIED SO FAR. UNDER COLUMN NO.9 OF FORM N O.36, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF TH E ORDER APPEALED AGAINST. HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DATE, THE REGISTRY WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITHIN THE STATU TORILY PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. 4. FURTHER, FROM THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E, WE NOTICE THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 22 DAYS. HOWEVER, WE NO TICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MOVED ANY PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY CONVINCING REASO N FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSE D IN LIMINE AS UNADMITTED. 5. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD . DIT(E). WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO COMPEL US TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAID ORDER. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE DISMISS THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT ON 07TH OCT, 2014. /'! + 0 1 2 3 7TH OCT , 2014 * :, ; SD SD ( . / D. MANMOHAN ) ( . . ,/ B.R. BASKARAN) / VICE- PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER + , MUMBAI: 07TH OCT,2014. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS I.T.A. NO2228/MUM/2013 3 ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&#$ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. + <- ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. + <- / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6. =>: %- ? , . ? ! , + , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED : @, / GUARD FILE. A + / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ' (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) . ? ! , + , /ITAT, MUMBAI