VIJAY SHAMBHULING POPADE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1198/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 September 2025AY 2014-15Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 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 held that the right to appeal is a statutory right and must be exercised within the prescribed time limit. Since the assessee failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay and did not appear for hearings, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 96 days and failed to appear for hearings. The assessee also did not file any application for condonation of delay with sufficient reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay in filing the appeal when no sufficient cause is provided by the appellant and the appellant fails to appear for hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 253(3),Section 253(5),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Hearing: 20.08.2025Pronounced: 08.09.2025

I.T.A.No.1198/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2014-2015) Vijay Shambhuling Popade, ITO, Ward-1, Latur Popade Niwas, Pathak Galli, Latur, Maharashtra. PAN : BKPPP 0696 D vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Shashank Ojha, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 29/11/2024 framed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

2.

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 96 days in filing of this appeal. The defect has also been communicated to the assessee. Even otherwise, at the time of filing of the appeal, if there is any delay, then the assessee is required to file an application for condonation of delay along with reasons

2 ITA.No.1198/PUN./2025 (Vijay Shambhuling Popade) which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. As per section 253(3), appeal before this Tribunal can be filed within two months from the end of the month in which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. In the present appeal, the impugned order is dated 29/11/2024 and the appeal has been filed before this Tribunal on 07/05/2025. In absence of any specific evidence filed by the assessee, it is presumed that the impugned order has been communicated to the assessee on 29/11/2024. As per section 253(3) of the Act, the assessee was required to file appeal before this Tribunal latest by 31/01/2025, however, the appeal has been filed on 07/05/2025. So, there is a delay of 96 days. We also note that this appeal was fixed for hearing in the past on 11/06/2025 and 22/07/2025, but there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Even on the given date of hearing i.e. 20/08/2025, assessee failed to appear.

3.

The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant and that if the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfillment of those conditions that the right becomes vested and exercisable to the appellant. Undisputedly, the present appeal is barred by limitation. This Tribunal may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period referred to in section 253(3) of the Act if it is specified that there was 3 ITA.No.1198/PUN./2025 (Vijay Shambhuling Popade) sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that time and such powers have been provided u/s. 253(5) of the Act where time for filing an appeal has expired. In the instant case, the assessee has failed to file any condonation application stating any sufficient reason which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. It is also observed that the assessee even after having been served with valid notices of hearing, has failed to appear before the Ld.AO during the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and even in the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) against the levy of penalty of Rs. 9,26,979/-. These series of events indicates that assessee is not serious in prosecuting his appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal. Under these given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appeal is time barred as per the provisions of section 253(3) of the Act, as no plausible and/or sufficient cause is established giving rise to this delay. We therefore dismiss the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.09.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 08th September, 2025

4 ITA.No.1198/PUN./2025 (Vijay Shambhuling Popade) vr/- Copy to

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →