ABDUL HAKEEM,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD -1, BULANDSHEHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1131/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 August 2022AY 2009-103 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 declined to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the lack of a reasonable explanation. The assessee was also noted to be a habitual defaulter, disregarding notices from revenue authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions of Rs.10,19,100/- on account of cash deposits. The appeal was filed belatedly by approximately 14 months and 10 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned without a reasonable explanation, and the assessee's conduct in disregarding statutory notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aligarh [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 30.10.2017 arising from the assessment order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 r.w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the additions of Rs.10,19,100/- on account of cash deposits.

3.

We notice that the assessee has filed the appeal belatedly where the number of days delayed has not been specified. The delay in our understanding is about 14 months 10 days. No explanation worth the name has been provided to justify the delay. It is trite that the litigant is expected to perform its duties diligently and with commitment. The condonation of delay is exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit. The delay in the instant case is very long for which no justification is available on record. In the absence of any reasonability of explanation towards delay, it is difficult for the Tribunal to condone the delay howsoever liberal and pragmatic view is adopted. In the matter of condonation of delay, the assessee cannot escape the burden to proof which has not been discharged in the instant case.

4. At a first glance of the assessment order and the first appellate order, it is seen that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and has neither cared to attend before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A) in total disregard of the statutory notices. The assessee has simply filed the appeal before the CIT(A) and has gone in slumber. The same is the case before the ITAT. Despite several notices the assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal to prove its case. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has taken a very stern view against the assessee where the assessee has failed to appear before both the Revenue Authorities, i.e., Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and declined to grant any relief to such chronic defaulter. A reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Ashokji Chandji Thakor in R/Tax Appeal No.710 to 717 of 2018 judgment dated 17.06.2018.

5.

In the totality of the circumstances and having regard to conduct of the assessee, we decline to entertain the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is thus dismissed at the threshold as inadmissible.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex-parte.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/08/2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →