Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

M/s. Blue Bird Forex Services P. Ltd. 7, Swastika Plaza, Next to Kalaniketan, V.M. Road Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049 Vs. Income Tax Officer- 8(1)(2) Mumbai
September, 11th 2014
                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                          "SMC" Bench, Mumbai

                 Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President

                          ITA No. 2572/Mum/2013
                          (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

  M/s. Blue Bird Forex Services P. Ltd.     Income Tax Officer- 8(1)(2)
  7, Swastika Plaza, Next to                Mumbai
                                        Vs.
  Kalaniketan, V.M. Road
  Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049
                             PAN - AACCB0803H
                 Appellant                        Respondent

                     Appellant by:    None
                     Respondent by:   Shri Neil Philip

                     Date of Hearing:       10.09.2014
                     Date of Pronouncement: 10.09.2014

                                  ORDER






Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

     This appeal, by the assessee company, is directed against the order
passed by the CIT(A)- 16, Mumbai and it pertains to AY 2007-08.

2.    Though notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD, none appeared on
behalf of the assessee. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of this appeal exparte,
qua assessee.

3.    At the time of hearing the learned D.R. pointed out that there is a
delay of 50 days in filing the appeal and the assessee has not furnished any
explanation. In other words, sufficient cause is not explained for the delay in
filing the appeal. He also submitted that there was a delay of 68 days even
before the CIT(A).

4.    I have carefully verified the record. The Registry has sent a defect
memo wherein it was stated that the appeal is time barred by 50 days with a
direction to file an affidavit and a petition for condonation of delay whereas
the assessee merely filed a letter dated 03.04.2013 wherein it is stated that
there is a slight delay of 35 days and, without furnishing any reasons, a
                                      2                   ITA No. 2572/Mum/2013
                                                M/s. Blue Bird Forex Services P. Ltd.








request was made to condone the delay. In the absence of any specific
reason I am unable to appreciate the contention of the assessee. The Apex
Court, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors 167
ITR 471, observed that pedantic approach should not be taken in the matter
of consideration of explanation for delay in filing appeals but there should be
sufficient cause and the assessee has to properly explain the reasons for the
delay. In the instant case, admittedly, assessee has not furnished any
reason for the delay of 50 days. Under these circumstances I dismiss the
appeal as unadmitted on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th September, 2014.

                                                          Sd/-
                                                    (D. Manmohan)
                                                     Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 10th September, 2014

Copy to:

   1.   The   Appellant
   2.   The   Respondent
   3.   The   CIT(A) ­ 16, Mumbai
   4.   The   CIT­ 8, Mumbai City
   5.   The   DR, "SMC" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

                                                      By Order

//True Copy//
                                                  Assistant Registrar
                                          ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting