LOVELY FRAGRANCE,MUMBAI vs. CIT 20, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5772/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 July 2018AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the delay was due to a communication gap between the assessee's professionals, which reflected utter negligence. No sufficient cause was demonstrated to condone the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the CIT. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 605 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to a communication gap between professionals, and if sufficient cause was shown.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: DR Assessee by :

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2007-08 contest the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax-20 [CIT] vide order dated 01/11/2010. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 22/09/2009 accepting the returned loss of Rs.64.73 Lacs. Subsequently, the said order has been subjected to Lovely Fragrance Assessment Year-2007-08 revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. CIT for the reasons stated therein. The assessee, by way of this appeal, has challenged the jurisdiction u/s 263.

2.

The registry has noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 605 days. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Prateek Jain has pleaded for condonation of the same on the strength of condonation petition dated 13/09/2012 along with affidavit of one of the partner of the assessee firm as well as Chartered Accountant / Tax Consultant of assessee firm namely CA. Shri B.N.Shah & Advocate Shri Naresh Jain. The same has been vehemently opposed by Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri R.P.Meena by pleading that each days delay was required to be explained and there was no sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee. It has also been brought to the notice of the bench that the in consequential proceedings, the assessee has got relief from first appellate authority which has been confirmed by this Tribunal vide dated 09/01/2017, a copy of which has been placed on record.

3.

Upon perusal of condonation petition & other documents, we find that the assessee received the impugned order on 22/11/2010 and the delay in filing the appeal has been attributed to communication gap between co- coordinating Chartered Accountant Mr. B.N.Shah and representing Chartered Accountant Mr. Naresh Jain, both presuming that other must have filed the appeal. The above reason, in our opinion, reflect the utter negligence and casual approach adopted by the assessee as well as Lovely Fragrance Assessment Year-2007-08 professionals handling the assessee’s matter. The plea of communication gap as taken by Ld. AR in condonation petition does not convince us, in any manner, to condone the delay and the same is bereft of any merits. No sufficient cause has been demonstrated before us so as to warrant the condonation of delay. Resultantly, we dismiss the assessee’s appeal, being time-barred by law.

4.

In nutshell, the appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th July, 2018 Sd/- Sd/- (C.N.Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 12.07.2018 Sr.PS:-Thirumalesh आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT– concerned 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध मुंबई , आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard File

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →