INDIRA FOUNDATIONS PVT.LTD.,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 42/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 July 2022AY 2005-062 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 failed to provide convincing reasons and explain each day's delay. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 1102 days. The assessee attributed the delay to an employee's failure to inform the management about the receipt of the order. The revenue opposed the condonation of this significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 20-12-2017 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 07-12-2007.

2.

The registry has noted a delay of 1102 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength 2 - of petition. It has been stated that the appeal was to be filed on or before 18.12.2018. The assessee came to know of the disposal of the appeal only when it decided to file declaration under ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’. Upon enquiry, it was found that the order was received by the accountant Shri Srinivasan who left employment in August 2020. He inadvertently failed to inform the Managing Director about the receipt of the same. In the said background, Ld. AR sought condonation of delay. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed condonation of inordinate delay.

3.

After hearing rival submissions and after perusing the contents of the petition, we find that the assessee is unable to put forward any convincing reasons justifying condonation of delay. The onus was on assessee to explain each day’s delay which the assessee has failed to explain. In the absence of any sufficient cause, we decline to condone the delay and accordingly the appeal is not admitted.

4.

The appeal stand dismissed.

Order pronounced on 07th July, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →