M/s. Vilas Javdekar Eco Homes, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -3, Pune

ITA 233/PUN/2020

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by m/S. Vilas Javdekar Eco Homes against orders from the CIT(A)-3, Pune, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals were dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, due to the excessive delay in filing the appeals. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay nor did they file a condonation petition. The tribunal's decision was heavily influenced by Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the strict application of limitation laws, rejecting any sympathetic or equitable considerations for extending the limitation period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124415 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2020
• Other Referred Cases: D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., P.K. Ramanathan Vs. State of Kerala, and anor.
• Laws Referred To: Limitation Laws
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 232 & 233/PUN/2020 : A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 m/S. Vilas Javdekar Eco Homes 304-305 Siddharth Tower Sangam Press Road, Kothrud, PUNE-411 038 PAN: AAEFV4570G Appellant Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. Circle 3, Pune. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 25-01-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31-01-2023 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Pune, dated 11-07-2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 and dated 01-05-2018 for 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee. An adjournment petition was filed on a very frivolous pointless, casual and careless ground and as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court directives such ground as raised by the assessee is not acceptable for granting adjournment and prolong the matter for adjudication. Therefore, these cases were heard considering the submissions of the ld. D.R and the materials/documents available on record. 3. The appeal in ITA No. 232/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2013-14 is time-barred by 499 days and the appeal in ITA No. 233/PUN/2020 is time-barred by 581 days. The 2 ITA 232 & 233/PUN/2020 Vilas Eco Homes A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 assessee has not filed any condonation of delay petition or sworn in affidavit before the Notary Public Government of India or any equivalent document explaining the reasons for delay in filing these appeals. 4. We find Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., decided on 15-01-2007 deliberating upon the issue of Limitation Laws, opined that the mandated provision of limitation has to be construed strictly. When a mandatory provision is not complied with and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained the court cannot condone the delay only on sympathetic ground. In this case, there has been inordinate delay and no reason whatsoever was given for condonation of such delay. It was held that as per the settled principle of law, the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. Reverting to the facts of the present case before us, the assessee has not filed any condonation petition nor any affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. Therefore, these appeals filed by the assessee deserve to be dismissed on the threshold on the ground of limitation itself. 5. We further find strength from another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramanathan Vs. State of Kerala, and anor., dated 19-09-1997 where Hon’ble Kerala High Court had exercised discretion for extending the period of limitation on equitable grounds and this order was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that the Law of imitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. 3 ITA 232 & 233/PUN/2020 Vilas Eco Homes A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 6. Considering these binding decisions, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31 st January 2023 Sd/- sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated : 31 st January 2023 Ankam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)-5, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Pune. 5. the P. CCIT Pune. 5. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench Pune 6. Guard File. //सत्यापित प्रपत// True Copy// BY ORDER, /// TRUE COPY /// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune 4 ITA 232 & 233/PUN/2020 Vilas Eco Homes A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Date 1 Draft dictated on 25-01-2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 26-01-2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 31-01-2023 Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order 31-01-2023 Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 31-01-2023 Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order