SANJAY CHANDRA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, C.C., JAMSHEDPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be vague and insufficient to constitute a "sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal within the limitation period. Therefore, the appeal was not admitted.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT which was time-barred by 416 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing laxity on the part of their Authorized Representative (AR).
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable under the "sufficient cause" criterion for condonation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
order : April 30, 2021 ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur [hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’].
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. However, written submissions have been produced on the file and it has been requested the case of the assessee be decided on the basis of said submissions. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR considering the written submissions of the assessee.
The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 416 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that the delay of 416 days has occurred in filing the appeal which was occasioned due to laxity on the part of the AR engaged by the appellant for this purpose. No name of the AR engaged by the appellant/assessee for filing of the appeal has been mentioned. There is no mention of any date, the assessee approached the concerned AR. There is no mention as to why the assessee did not enquire about the filing of his appeal from his AR for a period of more than one year. The reasons mentioned in the application are vague and do not constitute sufficient cause for which the assessee was prevented for filing the appeal during the Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjay Chandra limitation period. The appeal, therefore, is not admitted being barred by limitation. The same is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
