PRAVIN BABU SHETTY, THANE V. ITO WD 21(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7523/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3468 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7523 & 7541/M/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI PRAVIN BABU SHETTY, 403, VASANT LEELA CHS, PHASE V, MRIDULA, WAGHBIL NAKA, GHODBUNDER ROAD, THANE (W) 400 615 PAN: APOPS4038R VS. ITO WARD 21(3)(1), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI S. PANDIAN, D.R DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2016 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ONE IN RE LATION TO QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY LE VIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE DIFFEREN T ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 30.10.13 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE ORDERS REVEALS THAT NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE FILING OF THE APPEAL DESP ITE SERVICE OF NOTICES THROUGH REGISTER POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT EARLIER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 26.05.15 BUT NONE HAD COME PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOU RNED TO 27.05.15. ON 27.05.15 AGAIN NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED FOR 26.08.15 AND A NOTICE THROUGH RPAD WA S ALSO DIRECTED TO BE ITA NO.7523 & 7541/M/2013 SHRI PRAVIN BABU SHETTY 2 ISSUED. NONE APPEARED ON 26.08.15 AND AGAIN THE RP AD NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR 08.12.15. THEN ON 08.12.15 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR 10.03.16. TODAY AGAIN I.E. O N 10.03.16 NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEALS. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS BEFORE HEARING THE LD. D.R. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE QUANTUM APPEAL ITA NO.7523/ M/2013. ITA NO.7523/M/2013 4. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DELAY OF 85 7 DAYS. IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO COGENT AND CONVINCING REA SON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED ABSENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED THAT THE AD DRESS OF THE ASSESSEE UPON WHICH THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED WAS CORRECTLY MENTION ED. IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT ALL THE NOTICES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CONCERNED NOTICE OF DEMAND WERE DULY SERVED ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME BECAUSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BEING SHIFTED FROM MUMBAI TO CHENNAI TILL 31.07.11 AND FR OM 28.09.11 TILL 27.09.13 TO MASCOT, UAE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT T HIS IS NOT A CONVINCING REASON FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL. THE ANOTHER REAS ON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT HE HAD FAMILY DISPUT E WITH HIS BROTHER AND BECAUSE OF THAT HE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIM E. THE OTHER REASON ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT DUE TO NON COOPERATION OF THE EARLIER CA, HE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL. ALL THESE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ITA NO.7523 & 7541/M/2013 SHRI PRAVIN BABU SHETTY 3 CONVINCING AND THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED T HE APPEAL BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. AS NOTED ABOVE, AFTER FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 16.03.15, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER APPEARED IN THIS CASE DESPITE TIME AND AGAIN SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER BOTHERED TO APPE AR BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. T HE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE US HAS R EMAINED NEGLIGENT IN APPEARING AND PROSECUTING HIS CASE. THE REASONS CI TED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ARE VAGUE A ND NOT CONVINCING. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALWAYS REMAINED RELUCTANT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES OR IN PROSECUTING HIS CASES. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS THEREFORE UPHELD. ITA NO.7541/M/2013 6. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE FIRST APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FILED WITH THE DELAY OF AROUND 20 MONTHS. SIMI LAR TYPE OF CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE QUANTUM OF AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THIS CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 16.03.2016. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. ITA NO.7523 & 7541/M/2013 SHRI PRAVIN BABU SHETTY 4 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.