DEEP & VEER CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5907/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 January 2023AY 2006-072 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and not cogent enough to condone the substantial time lapse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 968 days. The reason provided for the delay was an oversight by the company's accountant and a subsequent discovery by a new accountant.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and could be condoned by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

N/A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Khanna, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.01.2023

Date of Hearing : 17.01.2023 Date of Order : 19.01.2023 ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-3, New Delhi dated 01.12.2015 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006-07.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of filing the appeal before this Tribunal of 968 days. The reasonable cause submitted is that company’s accountant received the order through email from the counsel of the assessee company but the said accountant forgot to disclose the accounts found that the said appeal has not been filed. In these circumstances, it has been submitted that the delay should be condoned.

3.

Ld. DR for the Revenue strongly objected to this. 4. Upon careful consideration, we do not find reasonable cause cogent enough to condone the huge delay of 968 days. The case law of vide order dated 27.08.2018 referred by ld. Counsel of the assessee is not applicable on the facts of the case here. In these circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal in limine, being time barred.

5.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed as time barred. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of January, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →