PRAVIN BRAHMADEO PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 197/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 November 2022AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to take necessary steps to rectify the defects and file a condonation petition for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal could not be admitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 955 days. The ITAT noted that the assessee had not rectified the defects pointed out by the registry, including filing a condonation petition for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee can be admitted despite a substantial delay and failure to comply with procedural requirements for condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI

For Respondent: Ms. Sujata Iyengar
Hearing: 16/11/2022Pronounced: 16/11/2022

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year :2014-15) Shri Pravin Brahamdeo Vs. ITO/Asst. Commissioner of Pandey Income Tax 321, 1st Floor Room No.267, 2nd Floor Kumod Villa, V.P. Road Matru Mandir Girgaon, Mumbai-400004 Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007 PAN/GIR No.AGFPP1615F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Sujata Iyengar Date of Hearing 16/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

This appeal in A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-30/AC-19(2)/15102/16-17 dated 24/04/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 28/12/2016 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

At the outset we find that there is a delay of 955 days in filing of appeal by the assessee before us. The order of the ld. CIT(A) has been passed on 24/04/2019. The appeal should have been filed before us on or before 23/06/2019. But we find that the appeal has been filed by the Shri Pravin Brahamdeo Pandey assessee before us on 02/02/2022 with a delay of 955 days, for which a defect notice has been duly issued by the Registry on 26/03/2022. We find from the perusal of the records that assessee had not rectified the said defect by filing the condonation petition. However, we find that assessee has filed an undated letter before the Registrar of this Tribunal stating that the appeal could not be filed in time due to the reason that his father was admitted in hospital due to paralysis and that assessee was not able to attend to office. We find that this letter is merely a bald statement made by the assessee without enclosing any supporting evidences. Moreover, there is no evidence submitted by the assessee to prove the date on which his father was admitted and date of discharge from the hospital etc. No medical certificates were also enclosed in this regard. In any case, the assessee is duty bound to explain the delay in filing of appeal from 23/06/2019 to 02/02/2022 excluding the period of relaxation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to Covid-19 pandemic.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing. This delay has not been explained in our considered opinion by the assessee and hence, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.

Order pronounced in open Court on 16/11/2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →