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.