Mr. Lalchand Shankarlal Sharma, Thane V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THANE

ITA 2554/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: 255419914 RSA 2024
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LD; MANOJ KUMAR SINHA
• Section: 271(1)(c); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2554/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2016-17) ITA No. 2555/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2016-17) Mr. Lalchand Shankarlal Sharma Row House No. 10, Flower Vallery Complex CHS, Opp. Viviana Mall, Eastern Express Highway, Thane (W) Maharashtra – 400 601 PAN: BCNPS2755L ..... Appellant Vs. ACIT Circle -1, Ashar IT Park, 6 th floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Maharashtra - 400 604 ..... Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 24/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 19/08/2024 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These appeal by assessee are directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) Delhi dated 23.03.2024 respectively passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2016-17 2 ITA No. 2554 & 2555/Mum/2024 Mr. Lalchand Shankarlal Sharma respectively. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2555/Mum/2024:- The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another- 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)) erred in not condoning a delay of 149 days. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) ought to have condoned the delay of 149 days and admit the appeals. 2. The CIT (A) erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) ought to have decided the grounds of appeal and ought to have disposed of the case on merits. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2554/Mum/2024:- The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another- 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)) erred in not condoning a delay of 94 days. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) ought to have condoned the delay of 94 days and admit the appeals. 2. The CIT (A) erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) ought to have decided the grounds of appeal and ought to have disposed of the case on merits. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal. 3 ITA No. 2554 & 2555/Mum/2024 Mr. Lalchand Shankarlal Sharma 3. At the outset being quantum appeal we are deciding ITA No. 2555/M/2024 first, thereafter based on the outcome, ITA No. 2554/Mum/2024 will be taken as the same is in response to the penalty order. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual filed his return of income on 17.10.2016 declaring a loss of Rs. (-) 1, 29, 01,359/- to be carried forward. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under 'CASS'. The assessee was engaged in the business as contractor under the proprietary concern M/s. S.N. Enterprises. The assessee is also engaged in the entertainment industry under the name and style of M/s. S.N. Movies. During the year under consideration the assessee shown gross receipts of Rs. 4,05,66,807/- from business and a loss of Rs. (-) 1,86,70,047/-. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 99,82,555/- after giving set off of the loss claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. (-)1,29,01,359/-. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred this present appeal before us. 5. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith the grounds taken before us. It is observed that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was delayed by almost 5 months and in addition to this vide para 1.3 of the appeal order several notices of hearing were issued to the assessee vide dated: 28.12.2020, 02.11.2023, 01.02.2024 and 29.02.2024. But there was no response from the assessee's side. The reasons stated by the assessee in his condonation delay application are as under vide para 5.2 of the appeal order: 4 ITA No. 2554 & 2555/Mum/2024 Mr. Lalchand Shankarlal Sharma "There was delay in filing appeal because of authorized representative was out of town" "5.2. Perusal of Form No.-35, the assessment order was served upon the appellant on29/12/2018 and the appeal has been filed on 25/06/2019 which means there was delay of about 5 months. The reason for the same stated to be the non-availability of AR being out of station. The contention of the appellant does not deserve consideration on the following grounds: - (i) The appellant had taken the process of filling appeal so casually that the reason cited for condonation in late filling in no way justifies the delay of about 5 months. (ii) The appellant failed to offer any explanation supported by documentary evidence as to how AR being out of station can lead to delay in fling appeal by about 5 months. Prima-facie, the AR was out of place of his residence not out of the country. (iii) The appellant has cited very casual and non-justifiable ground for the delay in filling appeal and the appellant is not a very small appellant that this reason should deter him from filling the appeal in time. (iv) The delay in filling appeal should be examined with reference to the gravity of circumstances. There may be situation where even delay of one year may be justifiable. In the instant case, apparently, the appellant did not have any credible and reasonable ground to justify the delay of about 5 months. (v) The appellants misrepresentation can be gauged from the fact that the same reason for late filling of appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) has been stated. Though, this appeal was filed on 4/11/2019 well after 4 months of the instant appeal filed on 25/6/2019. How it can be believed that that the AR of the appellant was perpetually out of station. Further, the appellant filed appeal against the assessment order on 25/6/2019 taking plea that AR was out of station and 5 ITA No. 2554 & 2555/Mum/2024 Mr. Lalchand Shankarlal Sharma subsequently penalty order involving the assessment order was served upon the appellant on 4/7/2019 just after 9 days and the delay in filling appeal against the penalty order has been attempted to be justified on the same ground i.e. AR was out of station. These facts establish that the appellant has scant regard for the law and he is habitual in late filling of appeal. Undoubtedly, the provisions governing condonation of delay must be interpreted liberally but the same should not be done at the cost of not paying due regard for the law by the appellant. 5.3. In view of the above, I am not convinced that the delay should be condoned on the basis of the reason stated by the appellant. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of delay in filing of appeal is not condoned." 6. We have carefully considered the factual findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), while deciding the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee before him vide sub-para (ii) and (v) of the para 5.2. We don't find any anomaly in the factual findings in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Before us also the appeal was filed on 24.05.2024 which is delayed by 2 days and none appeared for the assessee on hearing date, i.e. 27.074.2024. In view of the above facts, it can be reasonably hold that the assessee is used to file the appeal before the Appellate Authorities, but the approach is of a non-serious appellant, rather wasting the time of Appellate Forums. In these circumstances we also concur with the findings of the First Appellate Authority and appeal of the assessee is dismissed as the assessee is failed to demonstrate before us also the substantial reason of delay and his bonafide. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on the ground of delay without any remarks on the merits of the case. 6 ITA No. 2554 & 2555/Mum/2024 Mr. Lalchand Shankarlal Sharma ITA/2554/M/2024 8. As the facts of the matter in this appeal is similar to what we hold in ITA/2555/M/2024 (supra), although merits of both the cases are different, but as the matter has been decided and dismissed on the ground of delay and same preposition of delay is here also, so we deem it fit to apply the findings of ITA/2555/M/2024 here also. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on the ground of delay without any remarks on the merits of the case. 10. In the net result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19 th day of August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, दिन ांक/Dated: 19/08/2024 Dhananjay, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग र्ड फ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai