HASSAN ALI KHAN, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

ITA 4405/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101049 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

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. 4405/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) SHRI HASSAN ALI KHAN VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 39C, 4TH FLOOR, ANAND DARSHAN CO.OP. SOCIETY, 13 PEDDAR ROAD MUMBAI 400026 OLD CGO ANNEX BLDG. M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AOMPK8155J APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.K. SRIVASTAVA DATE OF HEARING: 03.09. 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 .0 9 .2015 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA , A.M . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 36, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. 2. ADMITTEDLY , THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 142 DAYS. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPARTE, QUA ASSESSEE. 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.11.20 12. THE APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL SH OULD HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 09.01.2013 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE PRESENTED THE APPEAL PAPERS ALONGWITH FORM NO. 36 ON 31.05.2013 , RESULTING IN A DELAY OF 142 DAYS. ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT DURING THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME THE APPELLANT WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY , AND WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENT OR PROPER INSTRUCTIONS TO THE COUNSEL, HENCE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT KEEPING ITA NO. 4405/MUM/2013 SHRI HASSAN ALI KHAN 2 GOOD HEALTH BECAUSE OF PROLONGED CUSTODY IN PRISON AND , HENCE , HE TOOK CONSIDERABLE TIME IN GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE APPEAL. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN J AIL , HE WAS ABLE TO FILE APPEALS IN OTHER GROUP CASES IN THE YEAR 2012 AND , HENCE , IN THIS CASE , HE CANNOT RAISE A PLEA THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO OBTAIN THE DOCUMENTS AND HANDOVER THE SAME TO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. IN FACT , THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGA GED AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) , AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FURNISHING DETAILS AS TO WHAT ARE THE PAPERS WHICH COULD NOT BE HANDED OVER AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AND THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE DETAILS TO THE CONCERNED CH ARTERED ACCOUNTANT/ADVOCATE, ETC. , VAGUE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE DELAY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES , AND EVE N ON MERITS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CASE. THE LEARNED D.R. ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) TO SUBMIT THAT AT NO STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ANY DETAILS TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AND LIABILITIES SHOWN , THE INITIAL ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE EVEN AT THE SECOND APP ELLATE STAGE. HE , THUS , STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY THERE I S A DELAY OF 142 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL , AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL , EXCEPT VAGUELY STATING THAT HE COULD NOT HANDOVER THE DOCUMENTS AND APPEAL PA PE RS TO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE . T HERE IS NO EXPLANATION AS TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE SCRUTINISED BY HIM A ND HANDED OVER TO ITA NO. 4405/MUM/2013 SHRI HASSAN ALI KHAN 3 THE COUNSEL , AND WHEN THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE MADE READY AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL CANNOT BE ADMITTED, BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, SINCE THE DELAY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE. EVEN OTHERWISE, ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON MERITS. THUS, EVEN ON MERITS, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD SEPTEMBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( D. MANMOHAN ) ( SANJAY ARORA ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 3 RD SEPTEMBER , 2015 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 36 , MUMBAI 4. THE CIT, CENTTRAL - 1 , MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI