Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order, which had confirmed additions made by the AO for unexplained money and disallowance under Section 14A. The appeal was delayed by 171 days, which the assessee sought to condone, citing lack of awareness of notices and orders communicated via the Income Tax Portal and non-service of notices under Section 143(2).
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause or proper explanation for the 171-day delay. It observed that the assessee was a habitual defaulter and not diligent in its tax affairs. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the 171-day delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, given the assessee's claims of non-receipt of notices/orders and lack of awareness.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 147, 144, 14A, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.01.2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014.
Shri Deep Agarwal, ld.AR represented on behalf of the assessee. Ms. Dipu Koley, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 171 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed affidavit as follows :-
4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the delay was on account of non- service of the order on the assessee. It was the further submission that on merits also the assessee has a strong case, insofar as the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has not been served on the assessee. It was the submission that the order of the Assessing Officer itself is liable to be quashed. The ld.AR relied on various case laws which are as follows :- 1. PCIT-2, Kolkata, Vs. M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Private Limited, ITAT/182/2022 IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022, dated 05.12.2022 2. DCIT Vs. M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd., and CO No. 32/Kol/2018, dated 23.10.2019 3. PCIT Vs Raghvendra Mohta, ITAT/51/2015, IA No. GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025, dated 05.05.2025 4. Raghvendra Mohta Vs. ACIT, Circle 36, Kolkata, dated 08.04.2024 and 5. Commissioner of Income Tax International taxation-1, New Delhi Vs. Oracle Systems Corporation (Delhi High Court) dated 28.10.2024 i) Riteshh Agarwal Vs. ITO, passed in ITA No.826/Kol/2025, dated 27.10.2025 5. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the delay of 171 days should not be condoned. It was the submission that there is no sufficient cause and the reasons for the condonation of delay are not there. It was the submission that the assessment order is an ex-parte. The appellate order is also an ex-parte order. It was the submission that the assessee is habitual defaulter and there is sufficient cause shown for the condonation of delay and the reasons given are not true. It was the submissions that assessee has not been diligent in its tax affairs and, therefore, the delay is not liable to be condoned.
6. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly as mentioned by the ld.Sr. DR the delay of 171 days has not properly been explained by the assessee. True, it could be that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has not been issued, but then that does not mean that a lethargic act by an assessee can be condoned. The assessee, admittedly, has not been able to give sufficient reason for condonation of delay. The assessee is also admittedly has shown as habitual defaulter and not been diligent in its tax affairs. This being so, we are of the view that the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal is not liable to be condoned and consequently the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on account of delay not being condoned.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 20/11/2025.