Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as आअसं. 450, 452, 454 & 456/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2005-06 to 2007-08 & 2014-15) 452, 454 & 456/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2005-06 to 2007-08 & 2014-15) ‘the CIT(A)’]. The appeals in ITA No. 450, 452 & 454/Mum/2020 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08, respectively were decided by the CIT(A) vide separate orders of even date i.e. 07.10.2019 in an ex-parte proceedings. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 456/Mum/2020 for AY 2014- 15 was too decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) vide order dated 25.10.2019. Since, the issues raised in all these appeals are common, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided vide this common order. ITA No. 450, 452 & 454/Mum/2020 for AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 2. Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department submitted that the assessee had filed first appeals before the CIT(A) for AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 beyond the period of limitation. The appeals were time barred by 634 days, no application explaining reasons for delay and seeking condonation of delay was filed by the assessee along with the appeals. The CIT(A) had issued repeated notices, however, the same were received back from postal authorities with remarks “Not Known”. Thus, there was absolute non- compliance by the assessee before the CIT(A). In absence of any application seeking condonation of delay, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground of limitation. The CIT(A) was constrained to pass order ex-parte dismissing appeal on the ground of limitation. Even before the AO, the assessee had failed to produce relevant documents, there was non-co-operation and non-compliance on the part of the assessee during the assessment proceedings.
Submissions made by ld. DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the records reveals that the assessee was defiant and failed to comply with the notices issued by the AO during assessment proceedings. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The same आअसं. 450, 452, 454 & 456/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2005-06 to 2007-08 & 2014-15) 452, 454 & 456/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2005-06 to 2007-08 & 2014-15) was time barred by 634 days, no application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had issued notice of hearing of the appeals. However, the same could not be served and were returned by the postal authorities with remarks “Not Known”. Thereafter, the CIT(A) issued notice dated 24.04.2019 at Indore address of the assessee for hearing fixed on 24.09.2019. As per impugned order, the notice was served and the acknowledgement of service of notice is stated to be on record. Despite service of notice, the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A). In absence of any application for condonation of delay, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground of limitation. A perusal o the assessment order and the impugned order shows that the assessee is recalcitrant. However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, I deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee/appellant to appear before the CIT(A). The assessee shall file application explaining reasons for delay in filing of the appeals. Thereafter, the CIT(A) shall consider the said application and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Needless to say that the CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee/appellant before deciding the assessee’s application for condonation of delay and the appeal, if delay is condoned.
The impugned orders for AY 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are set-aside and the appeals for aforesaid AYs by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 456/Mum/2020 for AY 2014-15 5. The assessee in appeal has assailed ex-parte order by the CIT(A). A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal