IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"D" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President
and Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member
ITA No. 8646/Mum/2011
(Assessment Year: 2007-08)
Shri Rashad Ahmed Mujawar ACIT, Central Circle-24&26
9/B, 302,God Gift Tower 4th Floor, Àayakar Bhavan
Vs.
M.R. Chowk, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400020
Mumbai 400050
PAN - AFSPM1301H
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by: None
Respondent by: Shri Love Kumar
Date of Hearing: 26.05.2015
Date of Pronouncement: 26.05.2015
ORDER
Per D. Manmohan, V.P.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the
CIT(A)-39, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2007-08.
2. Penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c), having been confirmed
by the CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us on the ground that the CIT(A)
erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. The case was adjourned from time to time but none appeared on behalf
of the assessee. We therefore proceed to dispose of the matter exparte, qua
assessee. As could be noticed from Form No. 36, column with regard to the
date of communication of the order was not filled up; the order was passed by
the CIT(A) on 30.06.2011 and hence the appeal ought to have been filed on or
before 29th August, 2011, if it is assumed that on the same day it was served
whereas the appeal papers were filed by the assessee on 22.12.2011 resulting
in a substantial delay. When the same was pointed out to the assessee an
affidavit was filed wherein it was stated that during the course of recovery
proceedings the assessee came to know that the order has already been
2 ITA No. 8646/Mum/2011
Shri Rashad Ahmed Mujawar
passed by the CIT(A) and it was served in the office of the assessee on 27th
July, 2011. It was also submitted that assessee failed to inform his Chartered
Accountant within the stipulated time and immediately after realising the
lapse appeal was filed. The affidavit was filed on a non-judicial stamp paper
dated 29th November, 2011. Even if it is presumed that the order of the CIT(A)
was received on 27th July, 2011 the appeal should have been filed by the end
of September, 2011. The date on the stamp paper shows that assessee has
realised the lapse on his part in November, 2011 itself. In fact the
institutional fee was paid on 8th December, 2011; even reckoned from that
date there was further delay. Verification of Form No. 36 was signed on 20th
December, 2011 and appeal was ultimately filed on 22nd December, 2011. In
the affidavit filed by the assessee there was no explanation with regard to the
delay on the part of the assessee reckoned from the date of purchasing the
stamp paper or from the date of payment of institutional fees. Under these
circumstances we are of the view that the delay is not supported by sufficient
cause and hence we dismiss the appeal as unadmitted on the ground that the
appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th May, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C. Sharma) (D. Manmohan)
Accountant Member Vice President
Mumbai, Dated: 26th May, 2015
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A) 39, Mumbai
4. The CIT Central-II, Mumbai City
5. The DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
By Order
//True Copy//
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.
|