Loading judgment…
Facts
Basant Traders filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2017-18. There was a delay of 83 days in filing the appeal, and no affidavit was submitted to justify this delay or request condonation. Furthermore, the assessee consistently failed to appear for hearings, demonstrating a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the unaddressed delay in filing and the assessee's continuous non-appearance. It emphasized that the law only aids vigilant litigants, and the assessee's conduct indicated disinterest in pursuing the case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-prosecution.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं श्री अविताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.171/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Basant Traders, Income Tax Officer, No.682, Main Road Shevapet, Ward-1(2), Salem, Salem. Tamil Nadu-636 002. [PAN: AABFB6092N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : .06.2025 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 / 1068163112(1) dated 30.08.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. 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 At the outset, we have noted that, registry has reported that there is a delay of 83 days in this case. No affidavit has been filed justifying the reasons for the delay and or requesting condonation thereof. The assessee was called absent in the case. Material available on records indicate that the assessee has been continuously absenting itself on the dates of hearing. It is trite law that law aids only a vigilant litigant and not otherwise. The assessee by its non-appearance has alluded that it is not interested in prosecuting its matter. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 4.0 In the result, the appeal the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on , June-2025 at Chennai.