IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE : SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER MA NO.41/MUM/2021 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1647 /MUM/ 20 16) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 1 2 ) SHRI RAM BA BURAO SALVE 17/18, VYAPAR BHUVAN P.D. MELLO ROAD CARNAC BUNDER MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA - 400 009 VS. ITO WD 17(3)(1) MUMBAI AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. MARG MUMBAI 400 020 PAN/GIR NO. AACPS5498L (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI N.M. PORWAL REVENUE BY SHRI MANPREET S. DUGGAL DATE OF HEARING 09 / 07 /202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 / 07 /202 1 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : BY VIRTUE OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TR IBUNAL ON 29/05/2017 IN ITA NO.1647/MUM/2016 FOR A.Y.2011 - 12. 2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ORIGINAL TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29/05/2017 AND THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION HAS BEEN M A NO . 41/MUM/2021 SHRI RAM BABURAO SALVE 2 PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12/02/2021. THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 31/05/2017. WE FIND THAT THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BELATEDLY WITH A DELAY OF 1279 DAYS. IN SUPPORT OF T HE SAID APPEAL, THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD , A FFIDAVIT S OF THE ASSESSEE DULY NOTARISED TOGETHER WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF HIS ACCOUNTANT MRS. USHA SINGH , BOTH DATED 08/02/2021. IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS STATED THAT HIS ACCOUNTANT MRS. USHA SINGH HAD MIXED UP THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WITH OTHER PAPERS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE DELAY. FURTHER BY WAY OF A SEPARATE AFFIDAVIT FROM MRS. USHA SINGH, IT WAS AFFIRMED THAT SHE WAS IN DISTURBED STATE OF MIND ON RECEIPT OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND THAT SHE HAD APPARENTLY MIXED UP THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER WITH OTHER PAPERS AND THEREAFTER , SHE WAS BUSY WITH FINALISATION OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, IT HAD ESCAPED HER ATTENTION TO PLACE THE TRIBUNAL ORDER BEFORE THE ASSESSEE FOR NECESSARY ACTION. 2.1 . IN T HE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEE , IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS TRACED BY HIM ONLY PURSUANT TO RE COVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES. THE LD. AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 2.2. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT CONFERRING POWER ON THE TRIBUNAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY. ALL THE CASES RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. AR WERE RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF MAIN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THEY CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE US. I N THE ABSENCE O F ANY STATUTORY PROVISION IN THE ACT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF M A NO . 41/MUM/2021 SHRI RAM BABURAO SALVE 3 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 / 07 /202 1 BY WAY OF PROPER MENTIONING IN THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) SD/ - (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 12 / 07 / 2021 KARUNA , SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//