What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine as time-barred because the explanation for the delay did not inspire confidence. The grounds of appeal regarding disallowance of interest and treatment of business income were not adjudicated.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 73 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the CIT(A) order being misplaced by staff. The Tribunal found this reason unconvincing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The substantive issues regarding interest disallowance and income classification were not addressed.

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd vs Addl CIT RG 7(2) | ITAT Mumbai 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Hearing: 19.04.2022Pronounced: 22.04.2022

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 28.7.2016 pertains to A.Y. 2011-12.

The grounds of appeal

read as under :

1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the Order of Assessing Officer in reducing WIP on account of proportionate disallowance of interest expense of Rs.2,02,51,690/- capitalised to WIP mainly incurred on account of Secured Loans on the pretext that interest free Loans and Advances has been extended from Secured Loans by the appellant. It is submitted that such proportionate interest disallowance worked out by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) should be deleted and necessary direction should be given in this regard.

2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the Order of Assessing Officer in treating business centre income of Rs. l,35,09,390/-generated from providing Business Facility as income taxable under the head "Income from House Property". It is submitted that appellant has during the year continued with the activities of running of business centre and income there from has been regularly offered as business income. It is submitted that such treatment of 2 M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited considering business income as Income from House Property by the learned assessing officer is unjustifiable therefore it is requested from your honour to give necessary direction in this regard.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. None has been appearing on behalf of the assessee for the past several dates, despite service of notices.

At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal. For reasonable cause it has been submitted by a person claiming to be Chief Finance Officer of the assessee that learned CIT(A) order was misplaced by the staff. We find that above reasonable cause does not inspire any confidence. The same is liable to be rejected. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine as time barred.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2022.

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments