Rashad Ahmed Mujawar, Mumbai vs Assessee

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-39, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2007-08.

2. Penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c), having been confirmed by the CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us on the ground that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3. The case was adjourned from time to time but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We therefore proceed to dispose of the matter exparte, qua assessee. As could be noticed from Form No. 36, column with regard to the date of communication of the order was not filled up; the order was passed by the CIT(A) on 30.06.2011 and hence the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 29th August, 2011, if it is assumed that on the same day it was served whereas the appeal papers were filed by the assessee on 22.12.2011 resulting in a substantial delay. When the same was pointed out to the assessee an affidavit was filed wherein it was stated that during the course of recovery proceedings the assessee came to know that the order has already been 2 ITA No. 8646/Mum/2011 Shri Rashad Ahmed Mujawar

passed by the CIT(A) and it was served in the office of the assessee on 27th July, 2011. It was also submitted that assessee failed to inform his Chartered Accountant within the stipulated time and immediately after realising the lapse appeal was filed. The affidavit was filed on a non-judicial stamp paper dated 29th November, 2011. Even if it is presumed that the order of the CIT(A) was received on 27th July, 2011 the appeal should have been filed by the end of September, 2011. The date on the stamp paper shows that assessee has realised the lapse on his part in November, 2011 itself. In fact the institutional fee was paid on 8th December, 2011; even reckoned from that date there was further delay. Verification of Form No. 36 was signed on 20th December, 2011 and appeal was ultimately filed on 22nd December, 2011. In the affidavit filed by the assessee there was no explanation with regard to the delay on the part of the assessee reckoned from the date of purchasing the stamp paper or from the date of payment of institutional fees. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the delay is not supported by sufficient cause and hence we dismiss the appeal as unadmitted on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th May, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.C. Sharma) (D. Manmohan) Accountant Member Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 26th May, 2015

Copy to:

1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) - 39, Mumbai 4. The CIT- Central-II, Mumbai City 5. The DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai By Order

//True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai n.p.