What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and did not provide supporting evidence for financial constraints. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not interfered with.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 332 days. The assessee failed to file a condonation application or appear before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the reasons liberally, and whether the assessee provided sufficient cause for the delay.

Matsa Venkata Surya Narayana… vs ITO | ITAT Visakhapatnam 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, Sr.DR

Hearing: 28/01/2021

Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. Department by : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 28/01/2021. Date of pronouncement : 28/01/2021. O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25/11/2019 impugned herein passed by the ld.CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2011-12.

The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in ‘limine’ on the ground of delay of 332 days by holding as under:-

(Matsa Venkata Surya Narayana)

“4.2 There is a delay of 332 days in filing this appeal. Several notices of hearing have been issued to the appellant and the same were served. In response to the same neither the appellant nor the authorized representative has attended the case. Hence, the condonation for delay in filing the appeal is not filed. 4.3 Therefore, the appellant is not able to establish that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.”

The Assessee challenged the impugned order, which is under consideration before us and argued that the order under challenge suffers from perversity and irregularity therefore liable to be set aside as the Ld CIT(A) failed to consider the delay occurred in filing of appeal in reasonable and liberal manner. On the contrary the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We realize that the Assessee neither filed any application nor established sufficient cause for condonation of delay and even did not bother to appear before the Ld CIT(A) to pursue its case. During the course of hearing in the instant appeal, the ld. AR though claimed that delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has been occurred due to financial constraints, but there is nothing on record to support the Assessee’s contentions .

In our considered opinion, the Assessee has failed to demonstrate plausible and sufficient cause for condonation of delay before Ld. CIT(A) and us as well, hence, the order under challenge does not require any interference by this Court as the same does not suffers from any perversity and or irregularity.

(Matsa Venkata Surya Narayana)

Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee is liable to be dismissed, hence ordered accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed.

Order Pronounced in open Court on this 28th day of Jan., 2021.

MATSA VENKATA SURYA NARAYANA,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

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