HARISH RAJU RATHOD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO WD 2, RAIGAD

ITA 3628/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4086 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VAEHASPATI TR IPATHI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBA I BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3628/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI HARISH RAJU RATHOD, ROW HOUSE NO. A185, SECTOR 16, NERUAL (WEST), NAVI MUMBAI-400706 PAN: AATPR5924K VS. ITO WARD 2, PANVEL, TRIFED TOWER, 2 ND FLOOR, PLOT NO.3, SECTOR 17, KHANDA COLONY, NEW PANVEL, DIST: RAIGAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI VAEHASPATI TR IPATHI (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.02.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-1, THANE DATED 06.12.2013 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009- 10. 2. THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY-2008- 09, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,44,050/- AND AG RICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 12,33,030/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 26.07.2011 AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE SEEK REPEATED ADJOURNMENT, AND ON 03. 11.2011 IT WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WILL BE GRANTE D EVEN THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON 02.12.2011, AND THE CASE WAS FINALLY ADJOURNED FOR 15.12.2011, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING ON 12 .12.2011 AND SEEK TIME, HOWEVER, 2 ITA NO. 3628/M/2014 SHRI HARISH RAJU RATHOD THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN LAST OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR O N 15.12.2011 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AND THE AO MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDI TION: TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN RS. 7,44,050 ADD: ADDITIONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE 1. PROFIT @ 10% OF DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPTS (PARA 3.3) 29830 2. DISALLOWANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN (PARA 5) 200000 3. DISALLOWANCE MADE @ 10% OF FOLLOWING EXPENSES (PARA-6) PURCHASE 105457 SUB-CONTR.CHARGES 370500 LABOUR CHARGES 19767 FUEL EXPENSES 19871 MACH. HIRING CHARGES 26857 TRANSPORT CHARGES 36252 SITE EXPENSES 12547 591251 4. DISALLOWANCE OF AUDIT FEE (PARA 7) 15000 5. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES (PARA 8) 1233030 RS. 20,69,111 ASSESSED INCOME RS. 28,13,161 4. THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 28,13,161/- IN ITS ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT(A) ON 27.03.2012. 5. THE APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER 55 DAYS OF THE PRESCRIB ED PERIOD OF LIMITATION, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED IN THE CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE EMPLOYED ACCOUNTANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD ,W HO HAD LEFT AND THE ASSESSEE HANDLED THE CASE PERSONALLY AND WAS MOVING OUTSTATION FOR C ONTRACT WORK AND WHEN RECOVERY ACTION WAS INITIATED, HE WAS ADVISED TO FILE APPEAL WITH C ONDONATION OF DELAY. 6. LD. CIT (A) DID NOT CONDONED THE HENCE THE DELAY OF 55 DAYS RESULTANTLY THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2013 AGAINST WHICH THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE US. ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONDONING THE DELA Y FOR FILING THE APPEAL 7. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NONE HAS APP EARED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. AS NONE HAS APPEARED NOR EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCE S ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE LEFT NO OPTION EXCEPT TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 24 OF THE IT ( APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES 1963. 3 ITA NO. 3628/M/2014 SHRI HARISH RAJU RATHOD 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR FOR REVENUE AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH REVEALED THAT AFTER FILING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING DESPITE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY. 9. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 17.11.2015 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SERVED PERSONALLY WITH THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR 17.11.2015 ON 04.11.2015 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE AND THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FOR 14.01.2016, AND AGAIN A NOTICE WAS SE RVED ON 11.12.2015 FOR 14.01.2016 BUT NONE APPEARED AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FOR 01.02.2016. EVEN ON TODAY I.E. 01.02.2016 NONE APPEARED DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOT ICE UPON THE ASSESSEE AS WE HAVE SEEN THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW AS WELL AS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER CARES FOR NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NOR GIVEN ANY INDULGENCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THIS TRIBUNAL. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AN D FIND THAT NO PLAUSIBLE GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS SHOWN BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS HONESTLY AND DILIGENTLY PURSUE HIS CASE BEFORE THE AO, CIT(A) AND AGAIN BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 03/02/2016 S.K.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. !'# / GUARD FILE. $ //TRUE COPY/