ANIL PRASAD DAS,PURI, ORISSA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 213/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 July 20244 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that delay in filing an appeal can only be condoned if valid reasons are provided. Since the assessee failed to provide any reasons for the delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed due to a delay of approximately 147 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay before the CIT(A) on grounds of lack of knowledge and ignorance, but did not provide specific reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay without condoning it, when no specific reasons for the delay were provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR

Hearing: 30/0Pronounced: 30/0

This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 8.3.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2014 NFAC/2014-15/10196379 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2014-15.

Shri Akshay Ringasia Akshay Ringasia, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR , ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that he desires to file additional ground in It was submitted by ld AR that he desires to file additional ground in It was submitted by ld AR that he desires to file additional ground in the form of challenge to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. The the form of challenge to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. The the form of challenge to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. The additional ground is as follo additional ground is as follows:

P a g e 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2015-16

“

P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2015-16

At this point, ld AR was questioned as to against which the assessee is in appeal, to which, he has submitted that his appeal is against the order passed by ld CIT(A) u/s.250 of the Act. It was informed that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) of nearly 147 days. It was submitted by ld AR that the delay may be condoned and the issue be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A).

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that when the issue of delay was questioned by ld CIT(A), “it was mentioned that the appellant has delayed in filing appeal due to his lack of knowledge and ignorance. Appellant would like to apologize for the delay. However, he pleads for mercy and kindly accept the condonation of delay”. Admittedly, no reasons for the delay has been submitted before the ld CIT(A). A perusal of Form 35 in para 15 also shows the same, as extracted by the ld CIT(A). The delay can be condoned when some reasons or even reasonable reasons are provided. When no reasons are provided, the delay cannot be condoned. This being so,, as the assessee has been unable to provide any reasons before the ld CIT(A), I find no reason to interfere with the order of ld CIT(A) in regard to non- condonation of delay. P a g e 3 | 4 Assessment Year : 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →