What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. No justification was found for condoning the delay.

The assessee filed an appeal challenging additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 3437 days.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned due to insufficient cause shown by the assessee.

Mrs Neeta Vijay Mehta vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Hearing: 25.01.2023Pronounced: 25.01.2023

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short)-35, Mumbai passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2008-09.

The assessee has challenged the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidences in rebuttal to the contention of the A.O.

The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and has filed her return of income dated 29.09.2008, declaring total income of Rs.2,51,530/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 29.12.2010 was passed by the various additions/disallowances.

The assessee was in appeal, challenging the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) who then confirmed the said additions/disallowance made by the A.O.

The assessee is in appeal before us. It is pertinent to point out that inspite of several opportunities there was no representation on behalf of the assessee and, hence, we hereby proceed to decide the appeal by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and upon perusal of the available material on record.

Before getting into the merits of the case, it is observed that the present appeal has been time barred with a delay of 3437 days. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the assessee had submitted an affidavit dated 13.10.2022 specifying the reason for filing of the appeal belatedly. On going through the reasons stated by the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to substantiate that there was “sufficient cause” in filing the appeal after a lapse of almost nine years. It is also observed that the assessee has not made due compliance neither before the lower authorities nor before us. We find no justification in condoning the enormous delay of 3437 days. Hence, we find no merit in adjudicating this appeal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.01.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 25.01.2023 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

MRS NEETA VIJAY MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(3)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments