Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay. The original return for AY 2013-14 was filed incorrectly due to confusion between financial and assessment years, and an extra zero was added to the salary income, leading to a demand of Rs. 24,51,030/-. A revised return was filed later, and an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) after a significant delay of 2014 days.
Held
The Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal, including condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if not, whether the appeal should be dismissed as barred by limitation.
Sections Cited
139, 143(1), 154, 249, 254(2), 260A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Gunti Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12(1) PAN:BYKPS6071G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri Sai Kumar, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29/10/2024 of the learned CIT (A)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 3 Mumbai, for the A.Y.2013-14.
There is a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit by the assessee.
We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR for condonation of delay and perused the contends in the affidavit filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal in para 2 to 4 of the affidavit as under:
3. Accordingly, by considering the reasons as explained by the assessee for delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal and taking a lenient view, we condone the said delay in filing the appeal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR and carefully perused the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). There was a delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the learned CIT (A) as not maintainable being barred by limitation. The learned AR of the assessee has reiterated its contention as raised before the learned
Page 3 of 8 CIT (A) which are reproduced in para 6 of the impugned order as under:
The assessee has not explained any reason much less the sufficient reasons for such inordinate delay of around six years in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in para 7.1 to 7.5 as under:
In the absence of any reasonable cause to justify such an inordinate delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A), the prayer of the assessee is not acceptable because of unsatisfactory and unjustified reasons for such delay. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.