What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not genuine or bona fide. Consequently, the appeal was considered unadmitted and dismissed in limine.

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 324 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to forgetfulness caused by being busy. The ITAT did not find this explanation genuine.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 12,00,000/-.

Jignesh R. Shah vs DCIT | s.250 | ITAT Mumbai 2015

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

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 03-09-2015 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 30-11-2015 आदेश ORDER अिमत शु�ला, �या. स.: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by CIT(A)-34, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 for the assessment year 2002-03, on the following grounds :- “

1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in the facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as income from undisclosed sources”.

At the outset, the assessee’s appeal is barred by limitation by 324 days. Despite service of notice and various intimation given to the assessee, none appeared on the date of hearing nor any adjournment application was filed, accordingly the matter is being decided ex-parte.

2 Shri Jignesh R Shah

The assessee in support of condonation of delay had filed an affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the assessee had forgotten to send the appellate order to the Chartered Accountant for preparation and filing of appeals due to his busyness and it is only when penalty proceedings were initiated that the assessee realized about filing of appeal and hence sent the order to his Chartered Accountant for further action. Such an explanation prima facie does not appear to be genuine and bona fide ground or reason for condoning the delay of 324 days. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being barred by limitation is treated as unadmitted and is hereby dismissed in limine.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th November, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 30th November, 2015 ��त/Copy to:- 1) अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2) ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3) The CIT(A) -34, Mumbai. 4) The CIT–24, Mumbai. 5) िवभागीय �ितिनिध “जे”, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई/ The D.R. “J” Bench, Mumbai. 6) गाड� फाईल \ Copy to Guard File. आदेशानुसार/By Order / / True Copy / /

JIGNESH R. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIR.24(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments