Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. The assessee was absent during the hearing, and the appeal was filed after a delay of 11 days without sufficient cause. The assessee did not provide any written submissions or evidence to support their case.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was absent and did not provide any valid explanation or evidence for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the lower authorities and found no reason to intervene.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned without sufficient cause and proper evidence, especially when the assessee remains absent and fails to present their case.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2013-14 Tiruchitambalam Projects Limited, Assistant Commissioner of No.126, K.P.Road, Income Tax, Chettikulam Junction, Circle-1, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil. Tamil Nadu-629 002. [PAN: AAACT6980B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1074340715(1) dated 11.03.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. 2.0 The assessee was called absent in the case.
3.0 The Ld. DR took us through the brief factual matrix of the case. The Ld.AO through his order dated 15.03.2016 u/s 143(3) had made determined income at Rs.1,46,91,120/- as against returned Income of Rs.29,73,880/- filed by the assessee. The Ld.DR argued in favour of the order of lower authorities. It was contended that the order has been made after carefully considering the varied facts of this case in the light of material available on records. The Ld.DR also informed that in this case there is a delay of 11 days identified by the registry. It was argued that the letter of the assessee dated 12.06.2025 requesting for condonation of delay indicates that there was no sufficient cause was available with the assessee. It was contended that no evidence had been adduced in support of averments made for condonation of delay. Further, it was argued that the assessee is casual and irresponsible in attending to its requirements. It was consequently argued that the delay be not condoned and appeal be dismissed. 4.0 We have considered the arguments of the Ld. DR in the light of material available on records. The assessee was called absent. It is trite principle of law that law aids vigilant litigants only. Before us the assessee has not given any written submission or evidence to effectively assail the order of lower authorities. We are also convinced that no satisfactory explanation with evidence has been given to justify the delay.
Page - 2 - of 4 5.0 We have examined the order of lower authorities and are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld.AO dated 15.03.2016 and of Ld.CIT(A) dated 11.03.2025, which has been assailed by the assessee, has been passed after carefully considering the facts of the case and correct interpretation of law. Before us the assessee has not advanced any evidence to defend its case. We therefore totally agree and uphold the findings of the lower authorities. In this regard we rely upon the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Global Vantedge Pvt Ltd dated 14.03.2013 considering 1829 / Del / 2010 and / Del / 2011 holding as under:- “….The learned counsel for the revenue contended that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Appellate Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly, merely because it does not repeat the grounds of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on which the decision was given against the assessee or the department. The criticism made by the High Court that the Tribunal had “failed to perform its duty in merely affirming the conclusion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner” is apparently unmerited.”
6.0 Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld.AO therefore does not require any intervention at this stage.
Page - 3 - of 4 The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is therefore sustained. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore dismissed. 7.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 14th , November-2025 at Chennai.