CINEYUG, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR -3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2844/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8670 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA VERMA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 2844 /MUM/ 201 9 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 ) CINEYUG 301, ROSE APARTMENTS JUHU CHURCH ROAD JUHU, MUMBAI - 400 049. AAAFC700IP V S . DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1) AIR INDIA BUILDING NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI - 400 021. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY MS. SMITA VERMA DATE OF HEARING 08 . 12 . 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 .1 2 . 20 20 O R D E R TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 2.5.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS BEEN SAID TO BE FILED IN A SEPARATE STATEMENT. BUT NO SUCH STATEMENT IS ON RECORD. THE ISSUE UNDER ADJUDI CATION BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE OF RS. 3,57,041/ - . 3. AT THE OUTSET IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 272 DAYS IN FI LI NG THIS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS FU LL Y AWARE OF THE DELAY AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO CON DON ATION PETITIO N OR ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY A ATTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON RECORD. EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TIME TO PROVIDE THE SAME. NOW THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITS FURTHER ADJOURNMENTS . I N MY CONSIDERED OPINION WHEN THERE IS A DELAY OF 272 DAYS WHICH IS QUIT E CONSIDERABLE IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE A SSESSEE TO FILE THE CONDONATION PETITION AND SUBMIT THE REASONABLE 2 CAUSE FOR THE DELAY ALONG THE APPEAL . DESPITE BEING MADE AWARE OF THE DELAY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENT TIME AND AGAIN. 4. ACCORD INGLY IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION T HE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED NO CON DONATION PETITION OR SUBMIT TED ANY REASONABLE CAUSE F OR THE DELAY, THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS TIME - BARRED. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS TIME - BARRED . 5. I N THE RESULT , ASS ESSEE'S APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE ITAT RULES BY PLACING THE RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD ON 09.12.2020. SD/ - (SH A MIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 09 / 1 2 / 20 2 0 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBA I