JAGMANDRI FINVEST P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7392/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 February 2022AY 2008-093 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 noted the substantial delay in filing the appeals and found the explanations provided by the assessee to be unacceptable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. There was a significant delay of 849 days in filing these appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the significant delay in filing the appeals, with the explanations for the delay being deemed insufficient by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 69B,Section 56(1),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Hearing: 08.02.2022Pronounced: 16.02.2022

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 7393/Mum/2016
I.T.A. No. 7392/Mum/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of learned CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09.

2.

The grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 read as under :-

1. The A.O. erred in disallowing Rs. 36,400/-u/s 14 A without establishing any nexus as required u/s 14 a (1) of the Act.

2. The A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 13,96,844/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain on purchase and sales of shares. 3. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 99,10,000/-being share application money whereas full particulars of the same were submitted during original assessment proceedings. 4. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 6,81,08,018/- out of total deposits into bank accounts Rs. 7,94,14,962/- by reducing Rs. 99,10,000/- and Rs. 13,96,844/- already assessed as per Gr. No. 2 and 3. 5. The A.O erred in making the additions of Rs. 40,00,000/- u/s 69A and 69C by treating the amount received and paid to M/s Jay Kumar Infra Projects Ltd without appreciating facts & material in this regard.

2 Jagmandri Finvest Pvt. Ltd.

6.

The A.O. erred in making additions of 24,00,000/- by treating unexplained investment u/s 69 B in respect of difference in share application money paid by the appellant and amount confirmed u/s 133(6) without giving adequate opportunity to reconcile the same .

3.

The grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 read as under :-

1. The A.O. erred in disallowing of Rs. 33,540/- u/s 14A without establishing any nexus as required u/s 14A (1) of the Act.

2. The A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 25,39,744/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain on purchase and sales of shares.

3. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 1,13,49,000/- u/s 56(1) of the Act being share premium received on allotment of shares.

4. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 12,61,000/- u/s 68 of the Act being share Capital issued during the year.

5. The A.O. erred in bringing to tax Rs. 5,97,89,696/- out of total deposits into bank accounts Rs. 7,23,54,696/- by reducing Rs. 125,65,000/- and not Rs. 126,10,000/-on account of share capital and share premium already assessed as per Gr. no. 3 and 4.

6. The A.O. erred in making the additions of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 69A and 69C by treating the amount received and paid to M/s Jay Kumar Infra Projects Ltd.

7. The A.O. erred in making additions of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- by treating unexplained investment u/s 69B where no reply was submitted by the parties to whom share application money was paid by the assessee company.

4.

At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 849 days in filing these appeals. For , in the condonation petition it is mentioned that the assessee company was in financial problem. Hence, appeal could not be filed on time. For it has been submitted that concerned person did not have requisite knowledge of the procedure.

3 Jagmandri Finvest Pvt. Ltd.

5.

In the background of the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal, we note that these appeals are pending for five years. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the assessee. The explanation attributable for delay is not at all acceptable. Hence, these appeals are dismissed as time barred.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.2.2022.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →