Ratnagiri District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Ratnagiri V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Office, Ratnagiri

ITA 409/PUN/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9984 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.409/PUN/2020 निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ratnagiri District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Sahakar Bhavan, Jawahar Peth, Ratnagiri – 415612 PAN : AAAAR7920B .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pranjal Phadnis Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुिवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09-09-2022 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 11-03-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16. 2 ITA No. 409/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2015-16 2. We note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 402 days. Shri Vasant Gajanan Sawant, General Manager representing the assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 18-03-2020 explaining the said delay. The ld. AR, Shri Pranjal Phadnis drew our attention to the reasons explained and argued that the CIT(A) passed impugned order on 11-03-2019 and the copy of which received by the assessee on 18-03-2019. He submits that the said order was misplaced due to shifting of assessee’s office to new head office building. The assessee filed immediately after the original order found subsequently and due to which there was a delay in filing the present appeal in time. He argued though it is inordinate delay but the delay was caused inadvertently by misplacing of impugned order. The ld. AR argued that there was no intention on behalf of the assessee to file the appeal with delay but it was caused due to shifting of assessee’s office to head office. 3. The ld. DR, Shri M.G. Jasnani vehemently opposed the arguments of ld. AR and the contents of affidavit filed by the General Manager representing the assessee. The ld. DR argued that there was no evidence to show the shifting of assessee’s office to head office building and the assessee did not place on record any evidence explaining the delay on day to day basis. The submissions of ld. AR cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any evidence showing shifting their office to head office. Further, he submits that the assessee itself admitted the delay of 402 days inordinate delay and drew our attention to page 2 of the affidavit. He vehemently opposed in condoning the delay and prayed to reject the submissions of ld. AR. 3 ITA No. 409/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2015-16 4. Having heard both the parties, on an examination of notarized affidavit dated 18-03-2020 filed by the General Manager representing the assessee, we note that the impugned order was passed on 11-03-2019 which was received by the assessee on 18-03-2019 which has been admitted by the assessee in the notarized affidavit. It is also correct to state that the assessee must have filed the appeal on or before 18-03-2019 but which was filed on 22-06-2020. Admittedly, the delay of 402 days as rightly admitted by the ld. AR is inordinate delay and also correct that no reasons were explained on day to day basis in the said notarized affidavit. Merely, stating that assessee’s office shifted to head office building does not constitute the valid reason which really prevented to assessee to file the appeal in time. The statement of misplacing of order, in our opinion, the assessee made the same very casually which was made for the purpose of making a statement without any basis. Further, we note that the assessee is a District Central Co-op. Bank, managed by highly qualified officers and well trained professionals in respect of accounts and litigation. Therefore, in our opinion, the statement of, that the impugned order was misplaced due to shifting of assessee’s office to head office building is a mere statement without any evidence made for the purpose of filing the said affidavit. Therefore, the assessee failed to show valid reasons explaining day to day basis with evidences for the delay of 402 days which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, in the absence of such valid reasons the arguments advanced along with the averments in the notarized affidavit deposed by the General Manager representing the assessee are rejected. Thus, the delay of 402 days is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed. 4 ITA No. 409/PUN/2020, A.Y. 2015-16 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21 st September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. Padmahshali) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददिांक / Dated : 21 st September, 2022. रवि आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Kolhapur 5. नवभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्यानपत प्रनत// True Copy// आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ विजी सविि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune