Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Sterling Exports Inc. बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner of 405, Konark Darshan-B, Income Tax -23(3), Vs. Zaver Road, Mulund (West), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400080 Bandra-Kurla Complex, PAN : AALFS8235Q Mumbai - 400051 (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For the Appellant/Assessee: Shri Shashank Mehta For the Respondent/Revenue: Shri B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 19.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant/Assessee has challenged the order dated, 24.08.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 40, Mumbai [hereafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] for the Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 08.03.2013, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as „the Act‟).
The Appellant, a partnership firm, has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of 1460 days in filing the appeal as the impugned order was served upon the Appellant on 26.09.2016. One of the partners of the Appellant, has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, the relevant extract of which read as under:
“3. We had sought the consultation of our representing Chartered Accountant for further course of action. The said Chartered accountant used to handle appeals only upto the stage of ITA. No. 1915/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of which we were not aware and due to miss communication we were under the hones belief that necessary steps are taken by him in this regard.
Recently, when the government promoted and insisted the litigant taxpayers to opt for the dispute resolution scheme under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and settle the disputes, we considered it prudent to avail the benefit of this scheme.
However, when we consulted our Chartered Accountant, it was discovered that there was no appeal filed before the Hon‟ble Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Due to non filing of second appeal there was no pending appeal in the records of the department as on the specified date.”
On perusal of the above, it can be seen that the sole reason for delay in filing the appeal is that the Appellant had consulted the Chartered Accountant, who had represented the Appellant before the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority for filing of appeal. While the Appellant was of the belief that the Chartered Accountant would take the necessary steps, no steps were actually taken as the Chartered Accountant used to handle appeals only till the First Appellate Authority. This came to the knowledge of the Appellant only after the Appellant consulted the Chartered Accountant again to opt for settlement of dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
4. In our view, the Appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning delay of 1460 days in filing the appeal. Though a liberal approach is to be adopted while considering a plea for seeking condonation of delay, in the facts of the present case we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the Appellant and condone the delay as the explanation provided by the Appellant does not seem plausible even if the facts as narrated in the application are accepted to be true. The Appellant is a partnership firm - none of the partners raised any query or made enquiries in relation to the appeal for a period of almost 4 years. The application seeking condonation of delay as well as the accompanying affidavit is silent about steps taken by the Appellant and/or its partners towards filing of appeal. There is no proper
ITA. No. 1915/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 explanation offered by the Appellant, the Appellant has in a routine manner attributed the delay to miscommunication with the Chartered Accountant. Though delay for each day need not be explained with precision, some reasonable explanation is necessary to condone a delay of 1460 days in filing the appeal which, in our considered view, the Appellant has failed to offer.
5. In view of the above, application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed as being barred by limitation.
In the result, the present appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 29 .04.2022.