M/S BLUE BIRD FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO-8(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2572/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 257219914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'SMC' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 2572/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S. BLUE BIRD FOREX SERVICES P. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 8(1)(2) 7, SWASTIKA PLAZA, NEXT TO KALANIKETAN, V.M. ROAD VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI 400049 MUMBAI PAN - AACCB0803H APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI NEIL PHILIP DATE OF HEARING: 10.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.09.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)- 16, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO AY 2007-08. 2. THOUGH NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD, NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DI SPOSE OF THIS APPEAL EXPARTE, QUA ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 50 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION. IN OTHER WORDS, SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS NO T EXPLAINED FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 68 DAYS EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY VERIFIED THE RECORD. THE REGISTRY HAS SENT A DEFECT MEMO WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 50 DAYS WITH A DIRECTION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT AND A PETITION FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE MERELY FILED A LETTER DATED 03.04.2013 WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THERE IS A SLIGHT DELAY OF 35 DAYS AND, WITHOUT FUR NISHING ANY REASONS, A ITA NO. 2572/MUM/2013 M/S. BLUE BIRD FOREX SERVICES P. LTD. 2 REQUEST WAS MADE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY SPECIFIC REASON I AM UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APEX COURT, IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V S. MST. KATIJI & ORS 167 ITR 471, OBSERVED THAT PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF CONSIDERATION OF EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN FILING APPEALS BUT THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROPERLY E XPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED ANY REASON FOR THE DELAY OF 50 DAYS. UNDER THESE CIRCUM STANCES I DISMISS THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 16, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 8, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.