IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"D" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President
and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member
ITA No. 3853/Mum/2012
(Assessment Year: 2008-09)
Shri Rakesh Badrinath Mishra Assistant Commissioner
Room No. 6, Shivshakti Chawl of Income Tax - 19(2)
Vs.
Dr. Subramanyam Nagar Mumbai
Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400055
PAN - AGTPM8450B
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by: None
Respondent by: Shri Love Kumar
Date of Hearing: 07.07.2015
Date of Pronouncement: 17.07.2015
ORDER
Per D. Manmohan, V.P.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated
09.12.2011 passed by the CIT(A)-30, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2008-09.
2. Though the case was adjourned from time to time none appeared on
behalf of the assessee. In fact the notice issued by RPAD was returned unserved
with the postal remarks "NOT KNOWN". Assessee did not choose to give changed
address, if any, to the Registry. Under these circumstances we have no other
alternative except to dispose of the appeal exparte, qua the assessee.
3. The order of the learned CIT(A) having been communicated to the
assessee on 09.12.2011 the appeal ought to have been filed by the assessee
in February, 2012 whereas the appeal was filed by the assessee on
01.06.2012. There is a delay of 115 days in filing the appeal. Assessee
originally mentioned wrong date in Form No. 36 but subsequently filed a
revised Form No. 36 wherein it was mentioned that the order of the CIT(A)
was communicated on 09.12.2011. An affidavit was filed explaining the
delay of 102 days by submitting that the assessee was not keeping well
2 ITA No. 3853/Mum/2012
Shri Rakesh Badrinath Mishra
during the last week before the due date of filing the appeal which was the
cause for delay in filing the appeal.
4. The learned D.R. submitted that the delay was actually 115 days
whereas the assessee had given reasons for 102 days only. It was highlighted
that the assessee merely explained that in the month of February, 2012
assessee was not keeping good health but there was no reason for the delay
thereafter. The appeal was filed in June, 2012 but the assessee has not
furnished any explanation for the months of March, April and May. It was
therefore submitted that the delay is not supported by sufficient cause and
hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed as unadmitted.
5. We have carefully considered the reasons given in the affidavit and
also perused the record. As rightly pointed out by the learned D.R. assessee
has not placed any explanation with regard to the delay in filing the appeal
referable to March, April and May. Assessee's conduct before Tax Authorities
was also recalcitrant. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are
of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed as unadmitted on the
ground that it is barred by limitation.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay Arora) (D. Manmohan)
Accountant Member Vice President
Mumbai, Dated: 17th July, 2015
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A) 30, Mumbai
4. The CIT 19, Mumbai City
5. The DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
By Order
//True Copy//
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
|
