DESIGNER WORLD PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO - 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5486/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6859 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R MISHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA NOS. 5486 & 5487/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S. DESIGNER WORLD PVT. LTD. 603/604, SUNDERVAN, A/4, OFF LOKHANDWALA ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400 053 VS. ITO-9(3)(1) MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AACCD 7027 P ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. MISHRA DATE OF HEARING : 30.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.04.2021 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THESE ARE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPE CTIVE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI (LD.C IT(A) FOR SHORT), WHEREIN PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT ' FOR SHORT) OF RS.10,000/- EACH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.Y.) 2009-10 AND 2012-13. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT DESPITE SEVERAL NOTI CES, NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED INASMU CH AS THE RECEIPT OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IS MENTIONED AS 25.10.2017, WHILE THE APPEALS ARE F ILED ON 27.09.2018. FOR THE REASONABLE CAUSE OF THE DELAY, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A WRITTEN PLEA, WHEREIN THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE DELAY OR REASONABLE CAUS E BUT, ONLY CASE LAWS ARE MENTIONED. MOREOVER THE APPEALS ARE DEFECTIVE, INASMUCH AS THE PERSONS SIGNATURE ON APPEAL MEMO 2 ITA NOS. 5486 & 5487/MUM/2018 (AYS: 2009-10 & 2012- 13) M/S. DESIGNER WORLD PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IS CANCELLED. THE NON CO-OPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH CLEAR IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS REGARD, WE MAY RE FER TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2012-13, WHERE WHILE UPHOLDING THE PENALTY, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5.2 IN THE PENALTY ORDER IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S. 2 71(1)(B), IT IS MENTIONED THAT A NOTICE U/S. 142(1) ONE OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON 15.09.2014 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ON THE STIPULATED DATE NE ITHER ANYONE APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT NOR WAS ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. A REMAINDER WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON 29.12.2014 WHICH WAS ALSO SERVED BY SPEED POST. BUT AGAIN IT WAS NOT COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SUBSEQUENTLY, A SHOW CAUSE AS ISSUED BY THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 30.01 .2015 ASKING THE APPELLANT WHY NOT PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR NON COM PLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. APPELLANT EVEN DID NOT RESPON D TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, THE LD. A.O. IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS.10, 000/- U/S. 271(1)(B) VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2015. ALTHOUGH, APPELLANT FILED AN APPEAL AGA INST THE ORDER OF A.O. U/S. 271(1)(B) BUT IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THI S OFFICE ON 15.12.2016, 05.01.2017, 06.04.2017, 12.05.2017 AND 27.06.2017 DATES APPELLA NT DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD GIVEN BY THIS OFFICE. IN SPITE OF FIVE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT DID NOT AVAIL ANY OF THE O PPORTUNITY IN ITS DEFENSE EITHER BY WAY OF PERSONAL HEARING OR THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION RATHER THAN TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER CON SIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT IT APPEAR S THAT IT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE PENALTY. DURING THE STIPULATED DATES EITHER THE APPELLANT OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE THE UNDER SIGNED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICA TION WAS FILED. THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT CLEALY PROVES THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN ITS DEFENSE. THEREFORE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 3. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS AND HEAR ING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. DR FOR SHORT), WE FIND THAT THE APPEALS ARE DEFECTIVE AND TIME BARRED. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.04.2021 SD/- SD /- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 06.04.2021 ROSHANI , SR. PS 3 ITA NOS. 5486 & 5487/MUM/2018 (AYS: 2009-10 & 2012- 13) M/S. DESIGNER WORLD PVT. LTD. VS. ITO COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT - CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI