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

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.

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