RAKESH BADRINATH MISHRA, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 19(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3853/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93224 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LOVE KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' D ' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3853/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) SHRI RAKESH BADRINATH MISHRA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ROOM NO. 6, SHIVSHAKTI CHAWL DR. SUBRAMANYAM NAGAR SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI 400055 OF INCOME TAX - 19(2) M UMBAI PAN - AGTPM8450B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI LOVE KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 07.07. 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 .07.2015 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 30, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2008 - 09. 2. THOUGH THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY RPAD WAS RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNOWN. ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO GIVE CHANGED ADDRESS, IF ANY, TO THE REGISTRY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09.12.2011 THE APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FEBRUARY, 2012 WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01 .06.2012. THERE IS A DELAY OF 115 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY MENTIONED WRONG DATE IN FORM NO. 36 BUT SUBSEQUENTLY FILED A REVISED FORM NO. 36 WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS COMMUNICATED ON 09.12.2011. AN AFFID AVIT WAS FILED EXPLAINING THE DELAY OF 102 DAYS BY SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT KEEPING WELL ITA NO. 3853/MUM/2012 SHRI RAKESH BADRINATH MISHRA 2 DURING THE LAST WEEK BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL WHICH WAS THE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS ACTUALLY 115 DAYS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN REASONS FOR 102 DAYS ONLY. IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MERELY EXPLAINED THAT IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2012 ASSESSEE WAS NOT KEEPING GOOD HEALTH BUT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE DELAY THEREAFTER . THE APPEAL WAS FILED IN JUNE, 2012 BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE MONTHS OF MARCH, APRIL AND MAY. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND HENCE THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED D.R. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL REFERABLE TO MARCH, AP RIL AND MAY. A SSESSEE S CONDUCT BEFORE TAX AUTHORITIES WAS ALSO RECALCITRANT . HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SANJAY ARORA ) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 17 TH JULY, 2015 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 30 , MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 19 , MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI