Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Vigneshwara Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 27 June, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"F" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri D.Manmohan, Vice President
And Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member
I.T.A. No.1634/Mum/2012
(Assessment Year : 2005-06)
Vigneshwara Exports Vs. DCIT-7(3)
Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan
450/451, Kewal M.K. Road
Industrial Estate, S.B. Mumbai-400 013.
Marg, Lower Parel
Mumbai-400 013.
PAN/GIR No. AAACV 4585 F
(Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Assessee by : None
Department by : Shri Pradeep Shaurya
Arya
Date of Hearing : 24.6.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 27.6.2014
ORDER
Per D. Manmohan, V.P :
This appeal, filed at the instance of the Assessee company, pertains to assessment year 2005-06. Though notice was sent to the Assessee (Ack on record), none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal exparte, qua the Assessee.
2. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record.
3. At the outset it may be noticed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 22 days. Order of ld. CIT(A) was served upon the Assessee on 16/12/2011 whereas appeal was filed on 07/03/2012. Form-36 appears to have been signed on 25/01/2012. The Assessee filed an affidavit duly signed by one of the directors stating that their Chartered Accountant Mr. Anil Chaturvedi was not in town and now he is not associated with the company. Apart from the 2 I T A N o . 1 6 3 4 /Mum/2012 ( A Y : 2 0 0 5 -06) fact that company's Manager -Accounts had also left the company due to which it could not manage to file the appeal in time. The date on which the company's Manager left or their chartered accountant left or any action taken, details thereof were not furnished. Ld. DR, therefore, submitted that there is no reasonable cause for late filing of appeal.
4. He further submitted that even on merits the Assessee has no strong case. Even before the CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the Assessee and no information was forthcoming with regard to claim of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) followed the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) to hold that DEPB is not entitled u/s. 80IB and the assessment has been re-opened within 4 years and it is valid in law. No contrary decision was placed before us on behalf of the Assessee to highlight that the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is incorrect.
5. Having regard to circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order passed by ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference apart from the fact that appeal is barred by limitation and delay is not supported by sufficient cause. Order pronounced accordingly.
Order pronounced on 27th Day of June, 2014 .
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJENDRA) (D. MANMOHAN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Mumbai; Dated : 27/6/2014
Jv.
3 I T A N o . 1 6 3 4 /Mum/2012
( A Y : 2 0 0 5 -06)
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai