M/s. Falak Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Baroda

ITA 2620/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94901 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS V SHINDE
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2620/AHD/2013 [ASSTT/YEAR 2006-2007] M/S.FALAK FASHIONS PVT. LTD. B/19, SAMRAJYA NR. MUNJ MAHUDA AKOTA VADODARA 390 020. PAN : AAACF 9118 P VS ITO, WARD-1(2) VADODARA. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI VILAS V. SHINDE, DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 02/12/2015 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/12/2015 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, BARODA DATED 27.5.2011 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07. 2. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.15.00 LAKHS RECEIV ED FROM SHRI ASHIWN TRIVEDI AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 3. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 820 DAYS. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, IT IS ITA NO.2620/AHD/2013 2 CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM AN NRI WHO REFUSED TO GIVE CONFIRMATI ON LETTER FOR HAVING GIVEN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE DISPUTE WAS REG ARDING MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE COMPANY. THIS ISSUE DRAGGED FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND THE DISPUTE HAS REACHED COMPANY LAW BOARD (CLB) AND THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. NOW THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NECESSARY PROOF AND EVIDENCE W HICH HAVE DIRECT BEARING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. DUE TO THIS REAS ON, THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WELL IN TIME, AND THEREFORE, A PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN MADE. AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI ASHIWN TRIVEDI HAS ALSO BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE AFFIDAVIT O F SHRI PRADYUMAN KANTILAL BHATT, DIRECTOR OF THE M/S.FALAK FASHIONS PVT. LTD. HAS ALSO BEEN FILED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NONE COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT IS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND 820 DAYS OF L IMITATION. SUB- SECTION 5 OF SECTION 253 EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO A DMIT AN APPEAL OR PERMIT THE FILING OF A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS OBJECTIO NS AFTER EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 253, IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SU FFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THAT TIME. IN ORDER T O DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT SIN CE IT WAS NOT HAVING CONFIRMATION FROM THE SHARE APPLICANT, THEREFORE, I T DID NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO FILE THE APPEAL. TO OUR MIND EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY VAGUE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ALLEGED THAT THE SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY WAS TAKEN FROM SHRI ASHIN L. TRIVEDI. IT COULD APPLY T O THE AO FOR PROCURING THE PRESENCE OF SHRI ASHWIN L. TRIVEDI, HAD IT WAS A GENUINE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. NO SUCH STEPS WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION FO R ADMISSION OF ITA NO.2620/AHD/2013 3 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCORDING T O ITS VERSION, IT WAITED FOR TWO YEARS FOR COLLECTING EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS A LITIGATION GOING BEFORE THE CLB AN D THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, BUT NO SUCH DETAILS EITHER HAVE BEEN DE POSED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OR DISCLOSED IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED PETITION NUMBER, DATE OF INSTITUTION, DATE OF ITS DECISION BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OR CLB. HOW THOSE LITIGATIONS HAVE A BEARING ON THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS ? AL L THESE THINGS ARE TOTALLY MISSING IN THE APPLICATION. IT IS AN APPLI CATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAKE OF APPLICATION WITHOUT DISCLO SING ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN IT. IT IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER