DEEPAK MITTAL,HARIDWAR vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1864/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 February 2023AY 2007-083 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 noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the absence of any application to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal was considered defective and barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 657 days and the assessee showed a lack of interest in pursuing it.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, without any application for condonation of delay, is maintainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH: ‘DB’ DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 22.02.2023Pronounced: 22.02.2023

the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even, there is no application by the assessee seeking adjournment. On perusal of record, it is observed, on earlier occasions when the appeal was fixed for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated issuance of hearing notices through RPAD/Speed Post.

3.

This being an appeal against an order passed under section 263 of the Act, there is surprising lack of interest by the assessee in pursuing the appeal, which is pending for more than 5 years.

Since, sufficient opportunities have been given to the assessee, which the assessee has failed to avail, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing learned Departmental Representative.

4.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. It is observed from record, the Registry has notified inordinate delay of 657 days in filing the present appeal. However, till date, the assessee has not filed any application to demonstrate that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Therefore, the present appeal, being barred by limitation, is a defective appeal. Accordingly, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal in limine by treating it as a defective appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd February, 2023

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →