NEELAM EBRAHIM KHAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3620/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0783 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH KAMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH J SHETH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3620/M/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI NAEEM EBRAHIM KHAN, PROP. E.A. KHAN & SONS, NO.1, 77-B HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI 400 050 PAN: AABPK 8828M VS. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH J. SHETH, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI YOGESH KAMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.06.2015 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 123 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT HA S MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN PLEADED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPENDANT ON HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR TAX RELAT ED WORK. THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DID NOT ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S PROPERLY AND DID NOT SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) AND AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE ORDER OF THE AO HAD GONE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NOBODY REPRESENTED THE CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FORCED TO PASS AN EX-PART E ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE REASONS, THE ASSESS EE MISSED FILING OF THE ITA NO.3620/M/2012 SHRI NAEEM EBRAHIM KHAN 2 PRESENT APPEAL WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, RELYING UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT, HAS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY OF 123 DAYS IN FILING THE PRE SENT APPEAL BE CONDONED. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE PLEADINGS OF THE AS SESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY JUSTIFIABLE CAUS E OR REASON WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE LIMI TATION PERIOD. THE PLEADINGS IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ITSELF SPEAK THE CASUAL APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROSECUTING HIS CASE SINCE ITS BEGI NNING. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS PLEADED THAT HIS AUTHORIZED CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN T DID NOT PLEAD AND PUT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AND FOR THIS REASO N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AS TO WHEN THE CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHOR IZED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO, THEN, WHY THE ASSESS EE OPTED AND CONTINUED THE SAME CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR REPRESENTATION IN APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ADMITTEDLY, NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER. NOW AFTER THE LAPSE OF 123 DAYS PERIOD AFTER THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION, THE ASSESSEE SUDDENLY HAS AWAKEN UP TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL. NO GROUND OR REASON HAS BEEN EXPLAINED WHI CH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. NEITHER ANYONE APP EARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR THE ASSESSEE BOTHERED TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN TIME AND EVEN NOT ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN F OR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, ARE NO T INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE SAME I S ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.3620/M/2012 SHRI NAEEM EBRAHIM KHAN 3 3. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO THEREFORE DIS MISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.06.201 5. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 10.09.2015. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.