PINAK BHANJI DEDHIA, MUMBAI V. IUTO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6593/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75180 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6593/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PINAK BHANJI DEDHIA 301, VIMAL APTS, NEHRU ROAD, VILE PARLE (E) MUMBAI 400 057 PAN: AEJPD 8053 R VS. ITO - 21(1)(4) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PARMINDAR DATE OF HEARING : 02.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.01.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)- 32, MUMBAI DATED 31.07.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE DE CISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF ` 31,19,000/- AND ` 22,62,490/-MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 02.01.201 4 AND NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE REGISTRY HAD SENT A REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE INFO RMING THE SAID DATE OF HEARING TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM-36 OF THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE SAID REGISTERED POST WAS RETURNED WITH THE REMARK LEFT BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY DETAIL AS TO THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS, IF ANY. ALSO, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS TIME BARRED BY TWO DAYS. IN THIS CONNECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ITA NO. 6593/MUM/2012 PINAK BHANJI DEDHIA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 FOR FILING THE APPEAL. THESE FACTS RESULT IN A PRES UMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ONLY INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL BUT ALSO HAS FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THAT MATTER, WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL IN LIMINE AS TIME BARRED. RESULTANTLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014 SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 02.01.2014 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.