IRPHAN MOGUL, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

ITA 323/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9748 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

1 ITA1211/MUM/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A NO.323 TO 325/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10) SHRI IRPHAN MOGUL UNIT 3, 4 TH FLOOR, H&M TOWERS 24 & 29 TH ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI-50 PAN : AAAPM9285H VS DCIT, CIR. 3(2),MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV DATE OF HEARING 25 -07-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28- 07-2017 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST ORDERS OF CIT(A)-41, MUMBAI DATED 328-08-2014 AND 29-09-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 CONFIRMING PENAL TY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVING INCOME FROM HIS PROPRIETORY CONCERN, M/S AUTO TECH WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF AUTOMOBILE REPAIR AND RESTORATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURNS 2 ITA1211/MUM/2014 OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE SAID RETURNS OF INCOME WERE PROCES SED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/ S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 09-01-2010 IN MOGUL GROUP OF CASES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH, NOTICE U/S 153A WERE ISSUED CALLING FOR RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AN D 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS IN REPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A ON 21-11-2011. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-0 9 AND 2009-10 WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A ON 22-03-2013 DETE RMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.34,71,626, RS.3042,920 AND RS.44,13,480, RESPECT IVELY. SIMULTANEOUSLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WERE ISSUED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED FOR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDERS, THE ASSES SEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE CIT(A). 3. BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS. THE CIT(A), FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS IN HIS ORDERS DATED 28-08-2014 AND 29-09-2014 CONFIRMED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 3 ITA1211/MUM/2014 4. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT TH E APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TIME BARRED BY 50 DAYS FOR AY 2007-08; 3 DAYS FOR AY 2008-09 AND 50 DAYS FOR AY 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A P ETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT. O N PERUSAL OF THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE DELAY OF 46 D AYS FOR AY 2007-08; 3 DAYS FOR AY 2008-09; AND 46 DAYS FOR AY 2009-10. THE CONDON ATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DEFECTIVE AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR REMAINING 3 DAYS AS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLA INED WITH REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING APPEALS; AND HENCE, WE REJECT THE CONDONATIO N PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IN LIMINE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL, IF SO ADVISED, FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER BY EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS WITH PROPER DOCUMENTS. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JULY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 ITA1211/MUM/2014 MUMBAI, DT : 28 TH JULY, 2017 PK/- COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI