MANISHA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7095/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 December 2020AY 2009-103 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 3-day delay in filing the appeal after being satisfied with the bonafides of the delay. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits, with the assessee being allowed to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, stating the partner was out of Mumbai. The assessee also expressed an intention 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 secondary consideration was the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

O R D E R Per Bench : 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has called into question correctness of the order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the learned CIT(A)-38, Mumbai in the matter of assessment u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2009-10.

2. When this appeal was taking up for hearing today it was noticed that the appeal is time barred by 3 days. In support of the petition seeking condonation of delay the assessee appellant has filed an affidavit contention set out below: Assessment Year: 2009-10 Page 2 of 3 I, Mrs. Manisha Vishnudas Kamat Partner, having her office at Manisha Enterprises, 19, M.K.Brothers Industrial Estate, A. K.Road, Jarimari, Mumbai- 400 072 have to state as under ; 1. I say that the firm is assessed to tax regularly under P.A. No. AAIFM2433K.

2.

I say, that the appellate order passed by the C.I.T(A) was received by the assessee on 12/10/2017.

3. I say that I was not in Mumbai till the 13th December, 2017.

4. I say that the Appeal was filed on 14-12-2017. Whatever stated above and in the Application is true to the best of my Knowledge and belief.

3.

The assessee wishes to opt for Vivad 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 Bharat Andhale, Departmental Representatives 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 22nd December, 2020

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →