MAHIPAL PUROHIT, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

ITA 3695/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5382 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H N SINGH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S . PANNU , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH , J UDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO. 3692 /MUM/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04 - 05 ITA NO.369 3 /MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 ITA NO.369 4 /MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08 ITA NO.369 5 /MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 SHRI MAHIPAL PUROHIT FLAT NO.403, 4 TH FLOOR, YOGI RESIDENCE, YOGI NAGAR, BORIVALI (W) , MUMBAI - 400 092. VS. DCIT - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), 19 TH FLOOR, ROO M NO.1923, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021. PAN : A A FPP 7613 M ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI H.N. SINGH - CIT - D R DATE OF HEARING 19/09 /2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 /10 /2018 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1 . THIS GROUP OF FOUR APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) - 39, MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS (AY.S) 2004 - 05, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2010 - 11. ALL APPEALS ARE FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION WHICH WE HAVE TABULATED BELOW : - A.Y.S 2004 - 05 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2010 - 11 DT. OF ORDER OF CIT(A) 17.12.2013 0 6 .01.2014 06.01.2014 27.07.2012 APPEAL FILED ON 27/05/2016 27/05/2016 27/05/2016 27/05/2016 DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL ( DAYS) 1183 537 537 1409 2 . ALL APPEALS WERE LISTED ON 9/09/2018. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. THE NOTICE WAS SENT FOR THE HEARING ON 19/09/2018 IS RETURNED ITA NO. 3692 - 3695 /MUM/201 6 MAHIPAL PUROHIT 2 BACK WITH THE REMARK OF THE POSTAL A UTHORITIES LEFT. THEREFORE, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE CASE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3 . LD. DR SUBMITS THAT ALL THE APPEALS ARE FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION . THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ENTIRE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEES APPROACH IS CASUAL TOWARDS FILING OF APPEALS AND IN SEEKING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS . 4 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. PERUSAL OF RECORDS REVEALS THAT LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER IMPUGNED ORDER ON DIFFERENT DATES AS WE HAVE REFERRED IN PARA - 2 ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE APPEALS ON 27/05/2016. THUS , THERE IS DELAY OF 1183 DAYS IN APPEAL FOR AY 2004 - 05, 537 DAYS IN AYS 2006 - 07 &2007 - 08 AND 1409 DAYS IN AY 2010 - 11 . 5 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN ALL CASES/APPEALS . IN THE APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS VAGUELY PLEADED THAT COPY OF CIT(A) WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND COPY OF THE SAME WAS OBTAINED RECENTLY , THAT THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE WAS UNDER TREATMENT AT HIS NATIVE PLACE AND HAD SHIFTER TO RAJASTHAN. THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM SUFFICIENT CAUSE . A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE IS ALSO ATTACHED. A SIMILAR CONTENTION IS DI S POSED IN VIDE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS ITA NO. 3692 - 3695 /MUM/201 6 MAHIPAL PUROHIT 3 TO HOW AND WHEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS RECEIVED. PERUSAL OF FORM - 36 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN HIS MUMBAI ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED HIS ADDRESS OF NATIVE PLACE. IN THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED REST FROM 15/05/2014 TO 14/06/2015. ALL THE APPEALS ARE FILED ON 27/05/2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY OF FURTHER ONE MORE YEAR (365 DAYS). EVEN OTHERWISE THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT ARE VAGUE WHICH DOES NOT INSPIRE THE CONTENTIONS. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED BY THE EXPLANATION/REASONS PUT FORTH FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL. IN THE RESULT, APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS DISMISSED. 6 . R ESULTANTLY THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS BEING NOT ADMITTED. IN THE RESU L T, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 . 10 .2018. SD/ - SD/ - (G.S. PANNU) (PAWAN SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 18 / 10 /2018 JV.SR.PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI.