What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1182 days. The assessee cited reasons such as the managing trustee being semiliterate, the chartered accountant leaving midway, and the delay not being wilful.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

Smt Daidevi Jugrajji Charitable… vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C/SMC’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND

Hearing: 08.03.2023Pronounced: 08.03.2023

आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [CIT(A)] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Salem/11579/2019-20 dated 19-01-2023. The return of income was processed and intimation u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) was issued by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru for the assessment year 2014-15 vide order dated 11.10.2016.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine.

The brief facts of the case are that the relevant A.Y is 2014-15 and addition made by CPC, Bengaluru while computing the taxable income u/s. 143(1) of the Act was Rs. 3,32,648/-. From the perusal of Form No.35, the CIT(A) noted that the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed by CPC, Bengaluru on 11.10.2016 and the order was served on assessee on 24.12.2016. The appeal has to be filed within 30 days that is to be allowed on or before 10.11.2016 before CIT(A), but actually the appeal was filed before CIT(A) on 05.02.2020 and thereby, there is a delay of 1182 days. The reasons stated by assessee before CIT(A) reads as under:

"Your appellants trust submits that there is a delay of 36 months in filing the said appeal before the Honorable authority. The Managing Trustee a septuagenarian is semiliterate and could not follow what was written in English 143(1) order. During this period the Charted Accountant who was engaged in request in the case left midway along with the part time accountant. The delay is submitted is not wilful and was beyond the control of your appellant petitioner. The delay is not condoned the petitioner trust will be put to great financial loss. And therefore prays to meet the ends of justice the delay may be condoned and justice rendered."

The CIT(A) by going through the reasons noted that the assessee could not show any cogent reason for belatedly filing the appeal and hence, he dismissed the appeal in limine as un-admitted.

Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.

Before me, the Ld. counsel for the assessee only reiterated the same submissions as made before CIT(A) and filed certain case laws, but could not explain any reason as to how the delay has occurred.

Even the simple cause he could not explain before me. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. D.R heavily opposed the condonation of delay and he argued that this long delay of 1182 days cannot be condoned without any reason.

After hearing the rival contentions, I am of the view that since the assessee could not adduce any reasonable cause for condonation of this long delay of 1182 days, I am constrained to dismiss this appeal. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08th of March, 2023.

SMT DAIDEVI JUGRAJJI CHARITABLE TRUST,SALEM vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, SALEM

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