AMIT TAK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 570/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 September 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal noted that the affidavit filed in support of the application was unattested, and no explanation was provided for this deficiency. Furthermore, the documents submitted by the assessee to substantiate the claim of multiple civil and criminal proceedings were incomplete. The first page of the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act did not provide sufficient particulars regarding the period of proceedings, and only the first page of the Section 482 Cr. P.C. petition was filed, preventing the Tribunal from ascertaining the pendency period. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee could not explain why the appeal was not pursued before the learned CIT(A) and instead opted for litigation in civil/criminal courts. Regarding financial stringency, the assessee failed to demonstrate how business losses prevented the filing of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish any sufficient cause for the 497-day delay in filing the appeal. As the delay condonation application was dismissed, the appeal itself was dismissed as barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The appeal filed by Amit Tak (the assessee) against the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18 was presented on 10.04.2025. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) had been partly allowed against the assessment order dated 28.12.2019, which computed the total income at Rs. 1,91,63,005/- after making additions for salary, rent, interest, royalty, and depreciation. The Registry noted that the appeal was filed 497 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay along with an unattested affidavit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was sufficient cause for the delay of 497 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), as required under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was attributable to multiple civil and criminal proceedings involving the applicant and his family members, as well as financial stringencies arising from prolonged litigation and business losses. The assessee relied on an unattested affidavit and partial copies of legal documents, including a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. concerning FIR No. 256/2017 registered under Sections 420, 406, and 120B IPC. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the delay condonation application in the provided text, but the ITAT's decision implies that the revenue's position was that sufficient cause was not established.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 138,Section 142,Section 120B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

Hearing: 25/09/2025Pronounced: 26/09/2025

Result

11.

In the view of the above discussion, we find that the applicant/assessee has failed to establish any sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal i.e. after a delay of 497 days. The application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.

1.

1. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/09/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Amit Tak, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 138

All 154 judgments and leading authorities on Section 138 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →