Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, 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] 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.
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.
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.
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