SUMAN MOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1101/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 July 2018AY 1998-993 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there were good and sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 143 days. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition, stating the submissions were vague and lacked evidence. The assessee's CMD was busy with various legal cases and outstation work related to company matters and investor issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA, HONBLE & SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. Shah
For Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Hearing: 28.06.2018Pronounced: 11.07.2018

Date of Hearing : 28.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 14, Mumbai dated 13.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 1998-99 in not condoning the delay in filling the appeal as well as not adjudicating the issue on merits.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal stating that submissions are (A.Y: 1998-99) M/s. Suman Motels Ltd., vague and devoid of any evidence, though assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the affidavit filed before the Ld.CIT(A) which was extracted in the Ld.CIT(A) order and submitted that the appeal could not be filed because the CMD of the company was frequently attending to various matters pending before the Courts, Special Court in Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors, High Court cases, Consumer Court cases and police action taken against the company and Directors. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal papers could not be signed by the CMD of the company as he was frequently going out of station looking after the company works and legal cases as the investors are located at different states of the country and the cases are pending at different places. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions properly and without giving any reasons for not condoning the delay and except stating that submissions are vague and devoid of any evidence rejected the condonation petition. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay may be condoned and the appeal be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding on merits.

4.

Ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in rejecting the condonation. He strongly opposed for condonation of delay.

(A.Y: 1998-99) M/s. Suman Motels Ltd., 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the reasons given by the CMD of the company in his affidavit, we are of the view that there is good and sufficient reasons for delay in filling the appeal with a delay of 143 days. Hence, we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits. We restore this appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating on merits after condoning the delay.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 11th July, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →