KHARGHAR GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION)II(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3099/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee's diligence in other matters. However, since the assessee failed to make requisite submissions before the AO, the matter was restored to the AO for adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 22 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-I/E-II(110)/2014-15 dated 11/03/2016. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-II(1), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 14/03/2014 wherein the income of the Khar Gymkhana Assessment Year-2011-12 assessee has been assessed at Rs.390.56 Lacs after certain additions / disallowances as against ‘Nil’ income filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011 since the assessee failed to supply requisite information / explanation during assessment proceedings.

2.

Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 11/03/2016 wherein the assessee’s appeal got dismissed for want of condonation of 22 days in filing the appeal before Ld. first appellate authority. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The only plea as raised before us by Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Anil Sathe is condonation of delay and consideration of matter on merits by Ld. first appellate authority. In support, a letter dated 16/07/2018 & affidavit dated 02/08/2017 of the Trustee of the assessee, explaining the reasons for delay, has been placed on record. It has also been submitted that the assessee was diligent in filing the appeals on various other occasions and there was genuine reason for delay in filing the present appeal before Ld. first appellate authority. The same has been controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri Ram Tiwari, by submitting that the assessee was grossly negligent in making any representation before any of the lower authorities. 4. We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee has not made any concrete representation before either of the lower authorities. At the same time, the assessee was diligent in filing the appeals for other years before first appellate authority as well as before this tribunal for other

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →