MANGESH SAWANT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CIRCLE-42(1)(1), MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. A defect memo was issued by the registry pointing out a shortage in appeal fee and that the appeal was barred by 31 days. The assessee did not respond to the defect memo. The tribunal noted that despite opportunities, the assessee did not comply with the appeal fee requirement.
Held
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the defect memo regarding the shortage in appeal fee. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the appeal in limine, granting liberty to file a fresh appeal upon payment of the requisite fee.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to non-compliance with the defect memo regarding appeal fee and delay in filing.
Sections Cited
68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:
The National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the NFAC) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Mangesh Sawant 2 ITA No. 2742/MUM/2024
The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the action of the NFAC in not condoning the of the case and in law. the action of the NFAC in not condoning the of the case and in law. the action of the NFAC in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal is erroneous. inasmuch as. the NFAC has delay in filing the appeal is erroneous. inasmuch as. the NFAC has delay in filing the appeal is erroneous. inasmuch as. the NFAC has not appreciated the reasons mentioned in the Form No 35 in its ed the reasons mentioned in the Form No 35 in its ed the reasons mentioned in the Form No 35 in its right perspective. right perspective. 2. The NFAC erred in framing an order ex parte. 2. The NFAC erred in framing an order ex parte. 3. The NAC erred in not adjudicating on merits the grounds of 3. The NAC erred in not adjudicating on merits the grounds of 3. The NAC erred in not adjudicating on merits the grounds of appeal filed in Form appeal filed in Form No 35, as under No 35, as under - "1. The learned Assessing Officer has "1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in treating Unsecured erred in treating Unsecured Loans amounting to Rs. 13.05,70,402/ Loans amounting to Rs. 13.05,70,402/- as unexplained cash credit as unexplained cash credit us 68 of the Income Tax, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the us 68 of the Income Tax, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the us 68 of the Income Tax, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective case in the right perspective 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition of Rs.87,73,000/- - of cash deposited as Unexplained Cash Credit of cash deposited as Unexplained Cash Credit without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erroneously made an addition 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erroneously made an addition 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erroneously made an addition of Rs.61,373/- -u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Income Tax Act. 196 u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Income Tax Act. 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in stating that the 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in stating that the 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in stating that the appellant has diverted in terest bearing funds towards advancing appellant has diverted in terest bearing funds towards advancing appellant has diverted in terest bearing funds towards advancing interest free loans and thereby adding interest of Rs. 5. interest free loans and thereby adding interest of Rs. 5.98.67.052/ 98.67.052/- to the total income. to the total income. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing interest The learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing interest The learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing interest of Rs. 29,85,044/ of Rs. 29,85,044/-paid on loan taken by the appellant without paid on loan taken by the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective." appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective." 2. At the outset, we may like to At the outset, we may like to refer the defect memo issued by refer the defect memo issued by the Registry vide letter dated 21.05.2024 the Registry vide letter dated 21.05.2024, wherein two defects were wherein two defects were pointed out, firstly, the appeal fee was short by Rs. 9500/ the appeal fee was short by Rs. 9500/- and secondly, the appeal the appeal was barred by 31 days. The assessee did not barred by 31 days. The assessee did not respond to the defect memo particularly with respect to appeal fee respond to the defect memo particularly with respect to appeal respond to the defect memo particularly with respect to appeal short by Rs.9,500/-. Despite providing opportunity of being heard . Despite providing opportunity of being heard . Despite providing opportunity of being heard on the two occasions on the two occasions, the assessee did not comply with the the assessee did not comply with the requirement of the appe requirement of the appeal fee and therefore, we reject the appeal in al fee and therefore, we reject the appeal in
Mangesh Sawant 3 ITA No. 2742/MUM/2024
limine with liberty to the assessee to file another appeal with liberty to the assessee to file another appeal, if so with liberty to the assessee to file another appeal advised, after paying the requisite amount of appeal fee. paying the requisite amount of appeal fee. paying the requisite amount of appeal fee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected.
Order pronounced in the op Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/09/2024. /09/2024.
Sd/- - Sd/- Sd/ (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/09/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai
