M/S. FLY WINGS AVIATION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-9, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5337/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 February 2021AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation to be bonafide. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits, with the assessee given the opportunity to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 74 days late. The delay was attributed to an inadvertent forwarding of the revision order to the director's attention, which was initially sent to a shareholder's residential address. The assessee wished to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme was a significant factor.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP : 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has called into question correctness of the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Pr. CIT(A)-9, Mumbai in the matter of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

When this appeal was taking up for hearing today it was noticed that the appeal is time barred by 74 days. In support of the petition seeking condonation of delay, the assessee appellant has filed an affidavit contention set out below:

I, Shri Rishish Yadav, aged about 28 years of Gurgaon, Indian inhabitant do solemnly affirm and sate as under: 1) I say that I am the Director of M/s. Fly Wings Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and, as such, well-conversant with the facts and circumstances leading to the belated filing of the captioned appeal.

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 2 of 4 2) I say that the revision order u/s. 263 of the Act was passed on 27/03/2019 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai for A.Y. 2014-15 whcih was sent to the address mentioned in the order and received on 02/04/2019. 3) I say that the address to which the revision order u/s. 263 was sent, i.e., 701, Dev Residency, N. Road No. 4, JVPD Scheme, Navyug Society, Mumbai-400 056 is the residential address of Mr. Vijay Thakordas Thakkar, a shareholder of the assessee company. However, inadvertently it was forwarded to me belatedly. 4) I state that it was due to the unintentional mistake committed by Mr. Vijay Thakordas Thakkar that the appeal could not be filed. I say that the captioned appeal is delayed not due to any mala fide or deliberate act on the part of the assessee but for the reasons explained hereinabove. 5) I repeat and reiterate the statements and averments made in the accompanying application for condonation of delay and they may be treated as reproduced verbatim in this affidavit. 6) I say that whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

3.

The assessee wishes to opt for Vivid Se Vishwas scheme and he can do so only upon the delay being condoned and the appeal being adjudicated on merits. In any case, having perused the petition, we are satisfied about bonafides of delay.

4.

Shri Ronak, Departmental Representative submits that he has no objection to the delay being condoned only for the reason that the assessee is opting for settlement of pending dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. It is for this short reason that he is not opposing the condonation petition.

5.

In view of the discussions and bearing in mind the entirety of the matter, we deem it fit and proper to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. In the meantime, as is the assessee has given an assurance to us-which is taken on record, the assessee may opt for settlement of dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Order accordingly. Pronounced in the open court today on the 9th day of February, 2021

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →