DIPIKA TANNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI
In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed
ITA 3832/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2003-04
Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negii.T.A. No.3832/M/2013 (Assessment Year: 2003-2004) C.O. No.110/M/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5402/M/2012) (Ay 2009-2010) फनाभ/ Smt. Dipika J. Tanna, Ito-25(3)(2), A1-801, Brizy Corner, Above Mumbai. Vs. Pizza Hut, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abjpt5903D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) फनाभ/ Ito-25(3)(2), Smt. Dipika J. Tanna, Mumbai. A1-801, Brizy Corner, Above Vs. Pizza Hut, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abjpt5903D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Anil Thakrar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Pant, Sr. Dr
For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Pant, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148
delay of 561 days. Further, there is no explanation as to why and under what circumstances the assessee had not approached the Counsels within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The explanation given by the assessee, both in the application of condonation as well as in the affidavit of the assessee, are not explained with supportive evidences
