RASIKLAL B. DODIA, MUMBAI V. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3562/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 356219914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B SENTHIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N M PORWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AN D SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JM ITA NO.3562/MUM/2011 : ASST.YEAR 2001-2002 SHRI RASIKLAL B.DODIA M/S.INDIPS SHAPE WIRE INDUSTRIES ARURVA INDL. ESTATE, MAKWANA ROAD ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 059. PAN :AAAPD5039A. VS. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 20(2) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.M.PORWAL RESPONDENT BY : DR.B.SENTHILKUMAR (CIT-DR) O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX U/S.263 ON 06.09.2004 IN RE LATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002. 2. THIS APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 2310 DAYS I.E. MORE THAN SIX YEARS. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONDONATION OF DELAY THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED AT THE MATERIAL TIME BY HIS CONS ULTANT FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S.263. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY ANOTHER COUNSEL ADVI SED THE ASSESSEE TO PREFER APPEAL AGAINST SUCH ORDER WHICH PR OMPTED THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL CAUSING DELAY OF SIX YEARS ONE H UNDRED AND SEVENTEEN DAYS. THE LEARNED A.R. RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS IN S UPPORT OF THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. IN THE OPPOSITION, THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE DELAY BY RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN VEDABAI ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL AND ORS.[(2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC)]. ITA NO.3562/MUM/2011 SHRI RASIKLAL B.DODIA. 2 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS ON THE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH IS FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX YEARS, WE ARE CONVI NCED THAT THERE ARE NO GOOD GROUNDS FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. TH E PARTY IS SUPPOSED TO ACT DILIGENTLY AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY NEGLIGENCE WHATSOEVER. IF THE CAUSE SHOWN FOR THE DELAY IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY AP PLYING FOR SUCH CONDONATION, IN SUCH A SITUATION THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED AND NOT OTHERWISE. HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE SLEPT OVER HI S STATUTORY RIGHT AND DID NOT TA KE ANY ACTION FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX YEARS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REASONABLENESS OF CAUSE IN PRESENTING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY. WE, THEREFORE, REFUSE TO CONDONE THE DELAY. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY SURINDER KUMAR BOVEJA VS. CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (DEL) AND THE THIRD MEMBER ORDER PASSED IN JCIT VS. TAFE LTD. (2007) 104 ITD 149 (CHENNAI)(TM). 5. IN VIEW OF OUR ADVERSE DECISION ON THE QUESTI ON OF CONDONATION OF DELAY, THERE IS NO NEED TO DE AL WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( R.S.PADVEKAR ) ( R.S.SYAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 30 TH JUNE, 2011. DEVDAS*` COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - XX, MUMBAI. ITA NO.3562/MUM/2011 SHRI RASIKLAL B.DODIA. 3 5. THE DR/ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.