SURAJ SALIAN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI V. ITO-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 717/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5988 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEFORE SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J ITA No. Assessment Year: Suraj Salian Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 317, Shahid Bhaga Singh Road Opposite Fort Market, Fort Mumbai (Appellant) Assessee by: Revenue by: Date of hearing Date of pronouncement PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM 01. This appeal is filed against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Act) dated 2/2/2016 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3) (learned AO) was partly allowed. preferred this appeal. 02. This appeal is delayed by 1423 days as per the Defect Memo of the Registry, dated 20/3/2023. This matter was heard earlier by another Bench on 3/8/2023 and later on relea and no condonation application w directed the Registry to list this appeal for hearing after giving notice to both the parties. The Bench categorically noted that there was no application seeking condonation of delay, on record. Consequently, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM A No.717/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Suraj Salian Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 317, Shahid Bhaga Singh Road Market, Fort v. The ITO-2(3)(2) Mumbai (Respondent) PAN No.AAJCS0247F None Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, D.R. : 26.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2023 O R D E R MAHARISHI, AM: This appeal is filed by Suraj Salian Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai ( learned CIT – A) dated 15/2/2019 14, wherein the appeal filed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 2/2/2016 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3) (learned AO) was partly allowed. The assessee is aggrieved and has erred this appeal. This appeal is delayed by 1423 days as per the Defect Memo of the Registry, dated 20/3/2023. This matter was heard earlier by another Bench on 3/8/2023 and later on released, as the appeal was delayed and no condonation application was found on record. directed the Registry to list this appeal for hearing after giving notice to both the parties. The Bench categorically noted that there was no application seeking condonation of delay, on record. Consequently, BENCH, MUMBAI uraj Salian Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of A) dated 15/2/2019 wherein the appeal filed against the assessment tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 2/2/2016 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Mumbai The assessee is aggrieved and has This appeal is delayed by 1423 days as per the Defect Memo of the Registry, dated 20/3/2023. This matter was heard earlier by another sed, as the appeal was delayed The Bench directed the Registry to list this appeal for hearing after giving notice to both the parties. The Bench categorically noted that there was no application seeking condonation of delay, on record. Consequently, Page 2 of 3 notice by Registered A/D was issued to the assessee on 22/8/2023 fixing the appeal for hearing on 26/9/2023. 03. On the date of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for condonation of delay was filed. Even on earlier occasions also, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. The Memorandum of Appeal filed by the assessee also clearly states that the impugned order appealed against was served on the assessee on 15/2/2019, whereas this appeal was filed on 9/3/2023. The defect memo was also communicated to the assessee by the Registry, as per record, on 20/3/2023. In view of the above facts, this appeal cannot be admitted, in absence of any condonation petition, as it is delayed by 1423 days. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as un-admitted. 04. However, we give liberty to the assessee that in case if it has a sufficient cause for filing the appeal late, and proper application for condonation of delay is made within time, the necessary application for recall of this order may be made, which may be considered in accordance with law. 05. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL] [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:30.10.2023 JJ: Page 3 of 3 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR By order Assistant Registrar