INDIACO VENTURES LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 3(3)2, MUMBAI

ITA 5167/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93214 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACCHIDANAND DUBEY
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' I ' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5167/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) M/S. INDIACO VENTURES LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(3)(2) 4TH FLOOR, SYMPHONY, S. NO. 2 RANGE HILLS ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR PUNE 411020 MUMBAI PAN - AAACS9367H APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SACCHIDANAND DUBEY DATE OF HEARING: 06.07. 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 .07.2015 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 7, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2007 - 08. 2. THE CASE WAS POSTED ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LATEST NOTICE ISSUED BY RPAD W AS RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS LEFT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH CHANGE OF ADDRESS, IF ANY. WE HAVE, THEREFORE, NO OT HER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL THE REGISTRY NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 577 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY AF FIDAVIT TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY. AN APPLICATION WAS FILED WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED DUE TO THE DEMISE OF THE DIRECTOR, MR. RAHUL PATWARDHAN , WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER TAX MATTERS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSU LTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH TAX ADVISORY MATTERS ALSO STARTED MAKING EXORBITANT CLAIMS FOR GIVING THE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION. TH OUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS DATED 01.08.2011 , THE SAID ORDER CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE - ITA NO. 5167/MUM/2013 M/S. INDIACO VENTURES LTD. 2 COMPANY ONLY IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2013 AND AS PER THE ADVICE GIVEN BY THE NEW AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, APPEAL WAS FILED BELATEDLY. 4. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WERE VERY VAGUE. THE DATE OF DEMISE OF THE DIRECTOR, WHO WAS LOOK ING AFTER TAXATION MATTERS, WAS NOT MENTIONED. IT WAS VAGUELY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2013 IT HAD COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THAT DATE WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. INSTITUTION FEES WAS PAID ON 12.07.2013, WHICH AT LEAST IND ICATES THAT BEFORE THE SAID DATE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BUT EVEN AFTER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ANOTHER SIX DAYS TO FILE THE APPEAL, WHICH IN ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE MATTER. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY OF 577 DAYS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE PROPER EXPLANATION IN AN AFFIDAVIT ALONGWITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE EXPLANATION WHEREAS NO SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE IN TH E INSTANT CASE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 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) 7 , MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 3 , MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI