Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against a CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18, which stemmed from an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Crucially, the assessee consistently failed to appear before the Tribunal, and the appeal was filed with a delay of 554 days without any application for condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on two primary reasons: the consistent non-representation by the assessee despite multiple hearings, and the fact that the appeal was barred by limitation by 554 days, with no condonation application filed.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal should be entertained when the appellant repeatedly fails to appear and the appeal is filed significantly beyond the limitation period without a condonation of delay application.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY
(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROYA, JM:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.01.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi-26 [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of call. It further appears from the record that on previous two occasions the assessee was never represented. Thus, having no other alternative, we have proceeded to deal with the matter after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.. We find that the appeal is barred by limitation by 554 days in support of which no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee on record. Having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, we dismiss this appeal as barred by limitation.