MADHULATA P. SARAF, GUJRAT v. I.T.O. WD. 24(1)-1, MUMBAI

ITA 18/MUM/2012 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1819914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAEPS4948M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 18/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant MADHULATA P. SARAF, GUJRAT
Respondent I.T.O. WD. 24(1)-1, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 24-07-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 02-01-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL (JM) AND SANJAY ARORA (AM) . . & ./I.T.A. NO.18/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) SMT.MADHULATA P.SARAF PROP. M/S N N PAPER AGENCIES 1 SHREE NAGAR SOCIETY 7 SHREE COMPLEX STADIUM ROAD AHMEDABAD -380014 (GUJARAT) / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 24(1)(1) PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E) MUMBAI-500051. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAEPS4948M ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHRIRAM BAJAJ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PREETAM SINGH ' / DATE OF HEARING : 24.7.2013 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.07.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL JM: ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 14.3.2011 PASSED U NDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ( THE ACT) ALONGWITH AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY OF 216 DAYS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2011 PASS ED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24 MUMBAI. ('CIT') U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ('ACT') YOUR APPELLANT PREFERS THIS APPE AL AMONG OTHERS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL EACH OF WHICH IS WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO AND INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND ALSO IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/ S 263 HOLDING THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 28.12.2008 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ERRONEOUS I.T.A. NO.18/MUM/2012 2 INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST U/S 36( 1 )(III) WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. YOUR APP ELLANT SUBMITS THAT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR WAS IT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND PRAYS THAT ORDER U/S 263 BE CANC ELLED / QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND ALSO IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 BY REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF YOUR APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 04. 03.2011 BY SIMPLY HOLDING THAT SAID EXPLANATION DOES NOT APPEAR SATISFACTORY. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT ORDER U/S 263 BE CANCELLED/QUASHED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD.AR REFERRED AN AFFIDA VIT OF ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT LD.CIT PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 DATED 14.3.20 11 DIRECTING AO TO DO PROPER INQUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT PURSUANT TO THE SAID O RDER OF LD. CIT THE AO MADE ASSESSMENT ON 31.10.2011. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TH E ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE AR FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER P ASSED BY AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS APPEALABLE AND APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER BESIDES TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY AO DATED 31. 10.2011. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 2.1.2012 AND IT HAS RESULTED D ELAY OF 216 DAYS IN PREFERRING THIS APPEAL. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO OTHER RE ASON WHICH COULD BE STATED FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. L D. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY BE CONDONED AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE AP EX COURT IN THE CASE OF MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471(S.C.). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ADMITTING THIS BELATED APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL. ON CONSIDERATION OF T HE AFFIDAVIT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY OF 216 DAYS IN FILING THIS APP EAL. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS A TEST OF A REASONABLE MAN IN NORMAL C IRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAS TO BE APPLIED AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND WHETH ER THIS DELAY COULD HAVE BEEN I.T.A. NO.18/MUM/2012 3 AVOIDED BY THE PARTIES BY EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS NOT AN ACT OF PRUDENT OR REASONABL E MAN TO WAIT TILL THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS MADE AND IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER FOR W HICH THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAS ALREADY EXPIRED. WE OBSERVE THAT EVEN WHILE THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE GOING ON BEFORE AO TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE/HER REPRESENTATIVE COULD CONSIDE R TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IF SO CONSIDER NECESSARY. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO SOME SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR (SUPRA) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THE CASE BEFORE US. WE AGREE THAT IT IS NEITHER PRACTICABLE NOR DESIRABLE TO EXPLAIN MINUTE TO MI NUTE AND HOUR TO HOUR DELAY BUT DELAY HAS TO BE EXPLAINED AND IT SHOULD FIT TO T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. FROM THE FACTS BEFORE US WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE DISCRETION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IS TO BE EXERCISED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER IT ALSO APPEARS THAT NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE AS SESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAI NST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO DATED 26.12.2008 HAS ALSO NOT DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE. HE NCE WE REJECT THE CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE SUFFICIEN T /REASONABLENESS OF CAUSE FOR DELAY HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. 6. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JULY 2013 . ' ) * 24TH 2013 SD/- SD/- ( /SANJAY ARORA) ( . . / /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; * DATED 24/ 07/2013 . . ./ PARIDA SR. PS I.T.A. NO.18/MUM/2012 4 * + - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 0 / CIT 5. 1 3 ' 3 / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI