Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Bright Star Corporation, Mumbai vs Ito Wd 16(3)(2), Mumbai on 9 October, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"G" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA no.3609/Mum./2015
(Assessment Year : 2001-02)
M/s. Bright Star Corporation
Shop no.3, Vasant Vilas
29-33, Benham Hall Lane ................ Appellant
Mumbai 400 004
PAN - AAEFB0168J
v/s
Income Tax Officer
................ Respondent
Ward-16(3)(2), Mumbai
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Date of Hearing - 14.09.2017 Date of Order - 09.10.2017
ORDER
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.
Aforesaid appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 9th March 2015, passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals)-30, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2001-02.
2. Brief facts are, the assessee a partnership firm filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 28th March 2002, declaring income at ` nil. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed vide order dated 31st March 2005, adding the amount of ` 2 M/s. Nehal Corporation 3,99,724 on account of value of unaccounted stock. Assessee challenged the addition before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by filing the appeal.
3. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeal found that the assessee had filed the appeal with a delay of more than 600 days. He found that while explaining the cause of delay, the assessee has stated that it was one of the three firms on which survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out and the main proceeding was in case of Nehal Corporation. Further, the assessee stated that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was given to understand that whatever final action is decided in case of Nehal Corporation would also be considered for the purpose of determining the final assessment in assessee's case. For that reason, the assessee did not file the appeal. However, it was stated, when the assessee approached the new Chartered Accountant regarding recovery proceedings, he advised the assessee to file an appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was filed with a delay of 617 days.
4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not find the aforesaid reason shown by the assessee satisfactory, hence, dismissed assessee's appeal in limine on the ground of delay. 3
M/s. Nehal Corporation
5. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even, the assessee has not filed any application seeking adjournment of the appeal. A perusal of the order sheet entries indicate that from the date of first fixation of appeal on 27 th August 2015, the assessee has taken adjournment on 16 occasions and on three occasions no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate the recalcitrant attitude of the assessee with regard to the appeal filed before this forum. Therefore, we are not in favour of granting any further adjournment to the assessee and proceed to dispose off the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee and on the basis of material available on record.
6. Heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee's appeal in limine without condoning delay of 617 days. After perusing the reason stated for explaining the delay, we agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the cause of delay shown by the assessee is not satisfactory. It further reveals that the assessee took a conscious decision not to file appeal against the assessment order and on second thought has filed the appeal, may be due to certain contingencies. Moreover, as stated earlier, assessee's non co-operative attitude before this forum also amply reveals that the assessee is not too serious or vigilant about the 4 M/s. Nehal Corporation income tax proceedings and has behaved in a very casual and careless manner. This kind of frivolous and unnecessary litigation creates a heavy burden on the judicial fora which is already hard pressed in dealing with ever increasing litigations. By filing the appeal and not following it up and further by seeking repeated adjournments the assessee has made a mockery of the judicial process. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised.
7. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.10.2017 Sd/- Sd/-
RAJESH KUMAR SAKTIJIT DEY
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED: 09.10.2017
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Revenue;
(3) The CIT(A);
(4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned;
(5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai;
(6) Guard file.
True Copy
By Order
Pradeep J. Chowdhury
Sr. Private Secretary
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai