IRIS BUSINESS SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15 (2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6080/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 October 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. However, since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 73 days. The assessee explained the delay due to issues with receiving and processing the CIT(A)'s order, including missing pages and staff leave/resignation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. A secondary issue arose from the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri K Balchandran, AR
Hearing: 05.10.2021Pronounced: 05.10.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-24, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-24/ACIT-15(2)(1)/IT-636/2016- 17 vide dated 25.04.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2)(1) Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 24.12.2018 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation of 73 days and assessee filed condonation petition stating that the orders of CIT(A) was served to assessee on 15.05.2019 and appeal was supposed to be filed by 15.08.2019 2 IRIS Business Services ltd; AY 11 -12 but could not file the same on time and hence, there is a delay of 73 days. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee and states the reason for delay, the same read as under:-

1.

“the CIT(A) passed the vide order NO. CIT(A)-24/ACIT- 15(2)(1)/IT-636/2016-17 on 25/04/2019. Since the order was initially uploaded on the website and intimation of it received on email, the person whose email id was given, did not realize it. When the physical copy was later received and forwarded to the taxation department around mid of May 2019, the concerned official of the company, was on leave, and shortly after the same, he also quit the Company. So the physical copy of the CIT(A) order was kind of misplaced and on nonce was aware of it’s experience.

Our consultant, also having gone out of the country on vacation, during the month of May/ June and the people handling taxation also not aware of this situation, this lapse was later realized in only August. Only then the Appellant searched for the Hard copy received and could retrieve the physical copy.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →