MAHIPAL PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

This group of four appeals by assessee are directed against separate orders of CIT(A) -39, Mumbai for assessment years (AY.s) 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2010-11. All appeals are filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation which we have tabulated below :- A.Y.s 2004-05 2006-07 2007-08 2010-11 Dt. of Order of 17.12.2013 06.01.2014 06.01.2014 27.07.2012 CIT(A) Appeal filed on 27/05/2016 27/05/2016 27/05/2016 27/05/2016 Delay in filing of 1183 537 537 1409 appeal( days) 2. All appeals were listed on 9/09/2018. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice through RPAD on more than one occasion. The notice was sent for the hearing on 19/09/2018 is returned Mahipal Purohit back with the remark of the postal authorities “left”. Therefore, we are left with no other option but to decide the case after hearing the ld. DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3. Ld. DR submits that all the appeals are filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The assessee has not explained entire delay in filing the appeals. The assessee’s approach is casual towards filing of appeals and in seeking the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 4. We have considered the submission of the ld. DR and perused the records of the case. Perusal of records reveals that ld. CIT(A) passed the order impugned order on different dates as we have referred in para-2 above. The assessee has filed all the appeals on 27/05/2016. Thus, there is delay of 1183 days in appeal for AY 2004-05, 537 days in AYs 2006- 07 &2007-08 and 1409 days in AY 2010-11. 5. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in all cases/appeals. In the application the assessee has vaguely pleaded that copy of CIT(A) was not served upon the assessee and copy of the same was obtained recently, that the applicant/assessee was under treatment at his native place and had shifter to Rajasthan. The assessee was prevented from sufficient cause. A medical certificate is also attached. A similar contention is disposed in vide affidavit filed by the assessee in support of application for condonation of delay. The assessee has not explained as