Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and passed an ex-parte assessment order due to the assessee's non-compliance. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, and no condonation petition was filed despite multiple opportunities and notices.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent failure to comply with procedural requirements, including filing a condonation petition for the delayed appeal and seeking repeated adjournments without valid reasons, demonstrated a lack of diligence and indifference to the appellate process. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal in limine for want of condonation was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed beyond the limitation period without a valid condonation petition and repeated non-compliance warrants dismissal. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 250, 249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Ms. Gulnaz Begum Mohammed, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Madanapalli. Madanapalli. PAN: ASBPG7313B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 09/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 09/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Ms. Gulnaz Begum Mohammed (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 28.03.2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
At the outset, it is noted that the assessee had filed a petition seeking adjournment of the hearing. However, considering the repeated failure of the assessee to prosecute the appeal, the adjournment request is rejected, and the matter is taken up for adjudication.
3.1 The brief facts of the case are that, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Due to non-compliance by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings in spite of issue of various notices, the Ld. AO was compelled to pass an ex parte assessment order dated 28.03.2022 under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.1,99,90,850/-.
3.2 Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. In paragraph no.15 of the appeal memo, the assessee merely stated that a condonation petition would be submitted later, but no such petition was ever filed before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of initial filing. In response, the Ld. CIT(A) issued a notice dated 08.11.2024 requiring the assessee to submit a condonation petition explaining the reasons for the delay, on or before 14.11.2024. However no response was filed by the assessee. Thereafter, reminders were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.11.2024 and 27.11.2024. In response, the assessee filed communications dated 26.11.2024 and 05.12.2024. However, these responses did not contain any explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, a final opportunity was granted by issuing a further notice on 14.01.2025 calling for a response by 21.01.2025. Once again, the assessee failed to file any condonation petition or explanation. In the absence of any cause shown for the delay despite repeated opportunities, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order dismissing the appeal in limine, holding that the delay remained unexplained.
3.3 The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with a Stay Application (SA No. 11/Hyd/2025) seeking stay of recovery. This Tribunal, vide order dated 02.05.2025, dismissed the stay application and granted early hearing, fixing the appeal for 15.05.2025, with a specific direction that no adjournment shall be sought by the assessee on the date of hearing.
3.4 Contrary to the Tribunal’s direction, the assessee again filed an adjournment petition on 15.05.2025, and the matter was refixed for hearing on 01.07.2025. Again, the assessee sought adjournment on 01.07.2025. Consequently, the appeal was refixed for hearing today, and once again, Shri M. V. Joshi, C.A. requested for an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is not well. However, we found that the adjournment request filed before us is not supported by any evidence.
3.5 We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the records and considered the conduct of the assessee throughout the appellate proceedings. We have gone through the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) placed at para nos. 2 to 4 of his order, which is to the following effect :
3.6 We have also gone through, the relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal dated 02/05/2025, which is reproduced as under :
3. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has not made out any case for the stay of the impugned demand and consequently, the stay is rejected. However, we grand an early hearing of the appeal of the assessee from 11th June, 2025 to 15th May, 2025. The parties are directed not to take any adjournment of hearing. The registry is directed to fix the appeal of the assessee in 15th May, 2025.
The following undisputed facts emerge from the record: i. The assessment was framed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144/144B on 28.03.2022 due to non-compliance by the assessee during reassessment. ii. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed belatedly, and the assessee did not file any condonation petition at the time of filing the appeal. iii. Repeated notices and reminders were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on 08.11.2024, 21.11.2024, 27.11.2024, and 14.01.2025, seeking explanation for delay. However, the assessee failed to provide any cause or supporting affidavit, despite responding on two occasions (26.11.2024 and 05.12.2024) without substance. iv. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal in limine for want of condonation. v. Even before the Tribunal, despite multiple adjournments and a direction not to seek further adjournment, the assessee continues to avoid prosecuting the appeal. 4.1 This consistent non-compliance and casual approach of the assessee clearly reflects indifference to the appellate process. The adjournment petitions filed are not supported by any evidence. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal due to unexplained and uncondoned delay. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal of the assessee is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby affirmed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.