Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Fact Bio Diesel Ltd, Mumbai vs Jt Cit (Osd) 8(1), Mumbai on 16 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.4977/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2009-10)
M/s Fact Biodiesel Ltd. Joint Commissioner of Income
54, Juhu Supreme Shopping tax-(OSD)
Center, Gulmohar Cross Road 210, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.
Vs. Road, Mumbai-20.
No.9 , JVPD Scheme,
Andheri (W), Mumbai-49.
PAN: AABCF1341B
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Ms S. Padamja (CIT-DR)
Date of Hearing : 16.05.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2018
Order under section 254(1) of Income -Tax Act
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
1. The instant appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16 [ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 19.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company filed its return of income for relevant Assessment Year on 24.09.2009 declaring total loss of Rs. 4,47,717/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed agriculture income of Rs.12,99,65,944/- The assessment was completed on 26th December 2011 under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order assessed total income art Rs. 20,47,85,840/- and made various addition and disallowances. On appeal ITA No.4977/M/2015 Fact Bio-Diesel Ltd before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was confirmed. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us raising the various grounds of appeal.
3. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite sending a number of notices though registered post with acknowledgement (RPAD) were return back with the remark of postal authorities "Left". Considering the fact that assessee is not appeared despite sending notices at the address provided under column-10 of Form No.36. Though, the authority letter of Sh. Chandra Prakash Pandey CA is on record. Therefore, we left no option except to hear the submission the Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and to proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee even not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) despite granting a number of opportunity. Even the present appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The assessee has not explained the delay in proper manner; therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. On merit it was submitted that the assessee has not substantiated its claim either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has shown agriculture income merely for inflating the capital by way of showing the bogus income in the form of agriculture income. The assessee has no agriculture land for doing agriculture activities for earning such income. 2 ITA No.4977/M/2015
Fact Bio-Diesel Ltd
4. We have considered the submission of ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. We have noted that impugned order was passed by ld CIT(A) on 19.03.2014 and the appeal is filed on 05.10.2015, which is filed after 462 days of the prescribed period of limitation. In support of condonation of delay the assessee has filed an affidavit of Director of the assessee. In the affidavit it is contended that the assessee has not received the copy of the order passed by ld CIT(A), the copy of the order was received only on 12.08.2015, after making the application in the officer of ld CIT(A). On perusal of appeal Form No. 36 and the address mentioned on the impugned order, we find that the same address is mentioned. The assessee has not explained as to how, the copy of the impugned order was not served, when the notice of penalty was duly served on the same address. Therefore, the contents of the affidavit do not inspire confidence, which are afterthought. In the result the application / affidavit filed for condoning the delay is rejected. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and dismissed.
5. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.05.2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
B.R.BASAKARAN PAWAN SINGH
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date: 16.05.2018
SK
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. Assessee 2. Respondent
3
ITA No.4977/M/2015
Fact Bio-Diesel Ltd
3. The concerned CIT(A) 4.The concerned CIT
5. DR "F" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
BY ORDER,
Dy./Asst. Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai
4