VITHALBHAI H PTEL, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 266/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0986 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYUR R MAKADIA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

F IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, A M .. , . . , ./ I.T.A. NO. 266 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 MR. VITHALBHAI H. PATEL, 18, GIRI KUNJ, 71 MARINE DRIVE, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, IST FLOOR, MUMBAI 400 20 ./ PAN : AGJPP2850J ( ! / APPELLANT ) .. ( '# ! / RESPONDENT ) A PPELLANT BY SHRI MAYUR R. MAKADIA R E SPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL $ % & ' ( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 02-07-2015 *+,- ' ( ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-07-2015 [ . / O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, J.M . : .. , THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2001-02, AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL F ILED BEFORE HIM, AS BELATED BY 2182 DAYS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 2.9 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER EXPLAINED WHAT WAS THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE NOR THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PR OSECUTED WITH DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOUBLY CONSCIOUS IN RESPECT OF COM PLIANCE. APPEAL WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE ITO-12(2)(1)-ON 2010 412006, WHICH MISTAKE HE REALIZED IN JANUARY, 2010. EVEN THEREAFT ER, INSTEAD OF FILING A FRESH APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE ASKED THE CIT( A) ON 14/01/2010 TO GET THE ORIGINAL SET OF APPEAL TRANSFERRED TO HIM F ROM THE ASSESSING ITA 266/M/13 2 OFFICER. A FRESH APPEAL WAS FILED ON 12/03/2012. CO NSIDERING THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT, THE CASE DOES NOT DESERV E CONDONATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLE DECIDED UNDER SECTION 5 OF T HE LIMITATION ACT, 1963, AS THE DELAY IS ARISING OUT OF SHEER CARELESS NESS AND NEGLIGENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 2182 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL. HENCE, THE CONDONATION PETITION IS DISMISSED. 3. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) REMAIN U NDISPUTED. THE APPEAL WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE A.O. ON 20-04-2006. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS MISTAKE WAS REALIZED ONLY IN JANUARY, 2010. AS TO WHY NO ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO THIS MISTAKE WAS MADE FOR THE LONG PERIOD OF ALMOST 4 YEARS, WAS EXPLAINED NEITHER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NOR BEFORE US. BESIDES, EVEN AFTER THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY DID REALIZE THIS MISTAKE, NO FRESH APPEAL WAS FILED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A). RATHER, SURPRISINGLY THE LD. CIT(A ) WAS ASKED ON 14-1-2010 TO GET THE ORIGINAL SET OF APPEAL TRANSFERRED TO HIM F ROM THE A.O. A FRESH APPEAL GOT FILED ONLY ON 12-3-2012. SUCH CONDUCT OF THE AS SESSEE, OBVIOUSLY, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR INCURRENCE OF THE D ELAY AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, RIGHTLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THESE ATTENDING F ACTS, DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE WELL REASONED ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT IS CONFIRMED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESASEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND JULY, 2015 . ' *+,- $ /0 1 2 02-07-2015 + ' 3& SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (A.D. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /J UDICIAL MEMBER / $ & MUMBAI ; 1 DATED 2-7-2015 [ %.../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , SR. PS ITA 266/M/13 3 ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ E( () / THE CIT(A)- 23, MUMBAI 4. $ E( / CIT- CITY-= 12, MUMBAI 5. H%I 3 '(JK , ) JK- , / $ & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI F BENCH 6. 3 L M & / GUARD FILE. ! ( / BY ORDER, # H( '( //TRUE COPY// )/(* + ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / $ & / ITAT, MUMBAI