MEENA J. SINGH, MUMBAI V. I.T.O. WD.13(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6921/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87893 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN SR
• Keywords: Ignorance of law

Judgement Text

, ( ) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B B ENCH, MUMBAI . . , BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI SANJAY GARG,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.6921/MUM/2012 ( ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07) MEENA J. SINGH PROP. OF ASHISH CARGO CARRIERS, ROOM NO.7, RAJGOR CHAMBERS, 99 SURAT MASJID BUNDER(E) MUMBAI-400 009. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-13(2)(4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AZKPS 4128 A ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN - SR. AR / DATE OF HEARING: 12 / 01 /2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/01/2015 # / O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) DATED 08/08/2012 . THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE DISMISSAL OF HEARING OF APPEAL BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ITA NO.6921/M/2012 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS BARRED BY 757 DAYS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR SUCH A LONG DELAY FOR FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE US. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESS EE AT THE ADDRESS AS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM-36 ALON GWITH APPEAL PAPERS, BUT THE SAID NOTICE HAS RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARK OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RES IDING AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY HER. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE FI ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. EVEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE O NLY PLEA RAISED WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EDUCATED UPTO 8 TH STANDARD AND WAS NOT AWARE OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS. THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE OF IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN EXCUSE WHI CH MAY JUSTIFY THE LONG DELAY OF 757 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEF ORE CIT(A). AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WE, DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. EVEN THE RELUCTANT ATTITUDE OF THE ASS ESSEE, IN PURSUING THE APPEAL IS APPARENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE US ON THE DATE OF HEARING A ND EVEN THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY HER IS WRONG. 4. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PRESENT C ASE AND SAME IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.6921/M/2012 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/01/2015. # $ %' & '!( % $ SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (SANJAY GARG ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; '! DATED 12/ 01/2015 . ! . ./ JV , SR. PS # # # # $ $$ $ )*+ )*+ )*+ )*+ ,+'* ,+'* ,+'* ,+'* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -. / THE APPELLANT 2. )/-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 0 / CIT 5. +1 )*! , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 2 3 / GUARD FILE. #! #! #! #! / BY ORDER, /+* )* //TRUE COPY// 4 44 4 / 5 5 5 5 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.