RAVI RATAN, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 18(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5460/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 546019914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'SMC' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 5460/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) SHRI RAVI RATTAN INCOME TAX OFFICER - 18(1)(3) A-106, ANTOP HILL WAREHOUSING MUMBAI COMPLEX, OFF COLLEGE ROAD VS. WADALA NAKA, MUMBAI 400037 PAN - AACPR7185B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B. PANDA DATE OF HEARING: 18.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.02.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 20.03.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-29, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS STATED T O HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 10.04.2013. THEREFORE, AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 09.0 6.2013 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL ON 13.08.2013 RESULTING I N A DELAY OF 65 DAYS. EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DULY VERIFIED ON 14.08.2013 WHICH READ S AS UNDER: - .. 1. I AM AN NRI SINCE THE LAST 4-5 YEARS. 2. THAT I WAS ABROAD WHEN THE ORDER U/S 144, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 29, WAS DELIVE RED TO MY RESIDENCE IN APRIL, 2013. 3. THAT I HAVE RETURNED TO INDIA ON 9 TH JULY, 2013. 4. THAT DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL WITH APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL WAS 9 TH JUNE, 2013. SINCE I WAS NOT IN INDIA DURING THAT P ERIOD I COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. ITA NO. 5460/MUM/2013 SHRI RAVI RATTAN 2 5. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS MADE FOR REQUESTING CONDONATION O F THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 3. SINCE THE REASONS WERE VAGUE, THE BENCH WANTED TO K NOW FURTHER DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE DATE OF GOING ABROAD, DA TE WHEN THE ASSESSEE RETURNED TO INDIA AND ALSO FURTHER DETAILS TO EXPLA IN THE DAY-TO-DAY DELAY. THE CASE WAS ACCORDINGLY POSTED FOR HEARING ON 18.0 2.2014 TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DAY-TO-DAY DELAY. IN RESPON SE THERETO THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS STATED TO HAVE BE EN VERIFIED ON 15.02.2014 AND CERTIFIED BY THE NOTRARY AS SIGNED BEFORE HIM O N 17.02.2014. THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT ARE AS UNDER: - 1. I RETURNED TO INDIA ON 9 TH JULY, 2013. 2. THAT I HAD TO TRAVEL OUT OF MUMBAI ON THE 15 TH JULY, 2013 AND RETURNED BACK TO MUMBAI ON 26 TH JULY, 2013. 3. THAT I THEN CONTACTED MY CONSULTANT FOR FILING THE APPEAL WITH THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE PROCESS OF PREPARING THE APPEAL TOOK A FORTNIGH T AND THUS WAS FILED WITH THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ON 13 TH AUGUST, 2013. 5. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS MADE FOR REQUESTING CONDONATION O F THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 4. ALONGWITH THIS AFFIDAVIT THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH COPIES OF THE TRAIN TICKETS TO INDICATE THAT HE HAS TO TRAVEL OUT OF MUMBAI ON 15 TH JULY, 2013 AND RETURNED BACK ON 26 TH JULY, 2013. THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE LEFT THE COUNTRY WAS NOT MENTIONED IN BOTH THE AFFI DAVITS. 5. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT MAY N OT BE ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE MINUTE TO MINUTE DELAY BY TAKING PEDANT IC APPROACH, WHILE CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FOR FILING THE APPEAL B EYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI 167 ITR 471, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH BASIC DETAILS WHICH CAN EXPLAIN THE BROAD R EASONS FOR THE DELAY WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EV EN ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHEN HE LEFT THE COUNTRY. WHEN THE SAME WAS PUT TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXACTLY FURNISH THE DATE OF LEAVING THE COUNTRY. SINCE THE LAST DATE FOR FILING THE APPEAL EXPIRED ON 09.06.2013, IT IS ITA NO. 5460/MUM/2013 SHRI RAVI RATTAN 3 THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EXPLANATION TO ENABLE ME TO APPRECIATE WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHEREAS IN BOTH THE AFFIDAVITS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH TH E DATE OF LEAVING INDIA THOUGH HE HAS MERELY MENTIONED THE DATE OF RETURN. IN THE CONDONATION PETITION ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT ORIGINALLY FILED , THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WAS OUT OF COUNTRY FOR THE PAST SIX MONTHS AND HE W AS ABROAD WHEN THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY HIS FAMILY. IN THE PASSPORT E NCLOSED IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VISITED AUSTRALIA, INDONESIA, UAE, ETC . IT ALSO BEARS THE STAMPS OF CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DATED 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. THE REASONS FOR WHICH HE HAD GONE OUT OF THE COUNTRY WA S NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE. IT ALSO DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS PASSED ON 20.03.2013 AND THE ASSES SEE WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEE DINGS, WHICH INDICATES THAT HE WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND HEN CE HE HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE GOING ABROAD ON A LONG TOU R. EVEN AFTER COMING BACK TO INDIA, I.E. ON 9 TH JULY, 2013, THE APPEAL HAVING BEEN BARRED BY LIMIT ATION BY 30 DAYS, HE COULD HAVE TAKEN IMMEDIATE STEPS TO FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 3-4 DAYS BUT HE TOOK ANOTHER 34 DAYS WITHOUT ANY REASON . WHEN CALLED UPON THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REA SONS FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL DELAY OF 34 DAYS, NO EXPLANATION WAS FORTH COMING. SINCE THE COUNSEL COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, AT LEAST WITH EFFECT FROM 09.07.2013, I AM OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE APP EAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BA RRED BY LIMITATION. FROM 09.07.2013 THERE IS A DELAY OF ABOUT ONE MONTH AND IN SUCH A CASE THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN IMMEDIATE STEPS TO FIL E AN APPEAL BEFORE LEAVING MUMBAI ON 15.07.2003 FOR A FORTNIGHT VISIT OUTSIDE MUMBAI AND HE SHOULD HAVE MADE BEST USE OF THE BALANCE SEVEN DAYS TIME TO FILE THE APPEAL AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY ALLOWED THE DELAY TO CONTINUE BUT EVEN AFTER RETURNING ON 26 TH JULY, 2013 HE HAD TAKEN FURTHER 15 DAYS TIME FOR FILING THE APPEAL WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE REASON S THEREOF. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I HOLD THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND, THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 5460/MUM/2013 SHRI RAVI RATTAN 4 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 29, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 18, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.