NANDARAJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WD-8(2)(3), MUMBAI

At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. From the records, we noticed that on earlier occasion too i.e. on 23.01.18, none had appeared before the bench and consequently, the matter was heard ex-parte. Later on, the assessee moved an M.A. bearing no. 511 & 512/Mum/18 thereby requesting for recalling the order. Considering the request of the assessee, the order passed dated 23.01.18 was recalled and the assessee was again provided an opportunity to be heard on merits vide order dated 31.01.19. Thereafter on 01.04.19, the matter was adjourned to 08.04.19. On 08.04,19, at the request of assessee, the matter was adjourned to 09.04.19. However, today nobody appeared when the case was called and even no application for adjournment was moved. This conduct of the assessee shows that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.

The brief facts of the case are that both the above mentioned appeals pertains to upholding the order of levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal i.e. for AY 2007-08 (there was delay of 364 days) and in appeal i.e. for AY 2008-09 (there was delay of 1010 days) respectively. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of both the parties, held that there was no material adduced by the assessee to successfully demonstrate that there was no negligent, inaction or want of due diligence involved in belately filing of both the appeals and even ‘no sufficient cause’ has been established by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.

We have heard Ld. DR and also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Even before us, no new facts have been brought on record by the assessee in order to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT (A). Moreover, there are no reasons for us to deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Accordingly, we uphold the same.

In the net result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th April 2019 Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Pradhan) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबईMumbai;यदनांकDated : 09.04.2019 Sr. PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध,आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/BY ORDER,