BARIPADA RCMS LIMITED,BARIPADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 196/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 June 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the unexplained delay. Since no reasons for condonation were provided, the Tribunal could not examine them.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 332 days. The assessee did not provide any reasons for the delay or file an application for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) should be admitted despite a significant delay without any valid reasons for condonation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr, Shri Charan Dass, Sr DR
Hearing: 27/0Pronounced: 27/0

O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 27.2.2024 in Appeal No. in Appeal No. NFAC/2016- 17/10214061 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

None represented on behalf None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri and Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue. An adjournment petition dated An adjournment petition dated 25.6.2024 is placed on record, stating that due to ill 25.6.2024 is placed on record, stating that due to ill 25.6.2024 is placed on record, stating that due to ill-health, the Chief Executive of the appellant society will not be able to attend the hearing, and of the appellant society will not be able to attend the hearing, and of the appellant society will not be able to attend the hearing, and P a g e 1 | 3 requested to adjourn the appeal to another date. As the appeal can be decided in the absence of the assessee, we reject the adjournment petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal.

3.

A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi shows that the appeal has been filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) with delay of 332 days. The ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of this delay and had not admitted the appeal. A perusal of para 3.4 of the order of ld CIT(A) also clearly shows that the appellant has not furnished any reason for delay in filing of appeal in Form No.35. Further, the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Neither has the assessee adduced any reason for the delay. As the assessee has not mentioned any reason for condoning the delay before the ld CIT(A), the Tribunal is not in a position to examine the reason. This being so, the order of the ld CIT(A) stands upheld and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed .

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27/06/2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →