Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI SANJAY GARG
सुनवाई क( तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30.01.2017 सुनवाई क( तारीख सुनवाई क( तारीख सुनवाई क( तारीख घोषणा क( तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 घोषणा क( तारीख घोषणा क( तारीख घोषणा क( तारीख आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The above captioned are three appeals relevant to three different assessment years i.e. A.Y. 1999-2000, 2001-02 & 2002-03. All the three appeals have been directed against three separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] of even date 14.08.2014 vide which the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for these assessment years vide his separate orders. M/s. Anatek Service Pvt. Ltd.
It is to be noted that appeal bearing No.6809/M/2014 for A.Y. 1999- 2000 is relating to the penalty order dated 03.03.05 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas relevant to A.Y. 2001-02 is relating to the order dated 16.08.04 and ITA No.6811/M/2014 for A.Y. 2002-03 is in relation to the penalty order dated 03.03.05 of the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had filed his first appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) against the above stated penalty orders on 24.06.13, hence there was a long delay of about 8 to 9 years in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee could not prove any sufficient cause for such a long delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The only plea taken was that the assessee, to buy peace, had paid the penalty amount without pursuing any appeal against the penalty order. However, in the month of February 2013, the assessee received a show cause notice from the department as to why the prosecution proceedings should not be initiated and this notice prompted the assessee to file the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) against the said penalty orders of the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this cannot be a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, dismissed the appeals being barred by limitation.
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of both the parties. The Ld. A.R. has not made any new submission regarding the delay in filing the appeals except that the penalty was not warranted in this case on merits. It is pertinent to note here that the assessee had not only paid the penalty levied by the AO but had with conscious mind chosen not to file the appeal against the said penalty orders. Now only because the department has launched some prosecution proceedings against the assessee, that itself, cannot be said to be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same are upheld. M/s. Anatek Service Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, all the three appeals are therefore dismissed.