sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

Shri Rakesh Badrinath Mishra Assistant Commissioner Room No. 6, Shivshakti Chawl Dr. Subramanyam Nagar Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400055 Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 19(2) Mumbai
July, 21st 2015
                          "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)
      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


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
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Experience

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions