LOORTHURAYAPPAN ANTONY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 7(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 111/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 August 2022AY 2012-133 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 found that the assessee was aware of the CIT(A)'s order much earlier and did not provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The reasons provided were found to be unconvincing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 1105 days. The assessee attributed the delay to their accountant who allegedly did not inform them of the CIT(A)'s decision and did not return the relevant papers. The assessee also filed a police complaint against the accountant for financial irregularities.

What were the issues?

Whether there was sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 18.08.2022Pronounced: 26.08.2022

आदेश / O R D E R

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, dated 30.01.2018 for AY 2012-13.

2.

There is a delay of 1105 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit, in which, he has claimed that Accountant appointed by him had not represented before the ld.CIT(A) and he did not inform the assessee about the decision of the ld.CIT(A). It is also claimed in the affidavit that the Accountant had not AY 2012-13 Mr.Loorthurayappan Antony :: 2 ::

returned back the papers related to the assessee’s present tax matter.

Therefore, the assessee claimed the delay of 1105 days.

3.

The Ld.AR for the assessee invited our attention to the Affidavit filed by the assessee. He explained that due to the Accountant of the assessee, he could not file the appeal in time. He also explained that the assessee has filed a police complaint against the said accountant for some financial irregularities.

4.

The Ld.DR strongly objected to the condonation of delay. He explained that the police complaint was filed on 26/12/2020 when the assessee claimed to have terminated the accountant in June. Thus, the reason give by the assessee is unbelievable.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. As per Form No.36 filed by the assessee, the assessee had received ld.CIT(A)’s order on 09.02.2018. Thus, in February, 2018 the assessee was aware about the decision of the ld.CIT(A). However, the assessee has not taken any steps to file the appeal before this Tribunal. Once the Appeal order was received by the assessee, there was no reason for him not to file the appeal within the statutory time limit of 60 days. Assessee has not given any reason for the same. As per the Affidavit of the assessee, services of the Accountant were terminated in June, 2020 and new Accountant was appointed in July, 2020. The appeal before this Tribunal was filed on 19.04.2021. There is not a single reason given by the assessee to explain

AY 2012-13 Mr.Loorthurayappan Antony :: 3 :: the delay from July, 2020 to 19.04.2021. The assessee has not explained, when the order of the Ld.CIT(A) received by him on 09.02.2018, why he had not filed the appeal. Thus, the Affidavit filed by the assessee does not explain the inordinate delay of 1105 days.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on the 26th day of August, 2022, in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →