Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order dated 27.02.2025 by the Learned CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal in limine for being barred by limitation. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed 3355 days after the prescribed period. The assessee failed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on multiple occasions.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared nor provided any justification for their absence. The Learned DR for the department argued that the order of the CIT(A) was legally sound as the assessee failed to prove any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation and if sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay. Whether the present appeal deserves to be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance.
Sections Cited
143(1), 246(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER .
Assessee has challenged before this Appellate Tribunal, order dated 27.02.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2015-16, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act issued by Centralized Processing Unit (CPC), Bangaluru, came to be dismissed in limine, being barred by limitation and having been filed 3355 days after the prescribed period of limitation.
Asia Biotech Pvt. Ltd., jaipur.
Present appeal came to be presented on 28.04.2025. On 03.07.2025, adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellant on the ground that written submission and paper book were yet be prepared on receiving details, from the appellant. Allowing said request, the appeal was adjourned to 27.08.2025. On 27.08.2025, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, and in the interest of justice, same was adjourned for today. However, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant even today. There is no request from the side of the appellant or any justification for non appearance on its behalf.
In the given situation, we have heard Ld. DR for the department, so as to dispose of the appeal.
Ld. DR for the department has referred to the impugned order, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee, after a delay of 3355 days, came to be dismissed by Learned CIT(A), particularly when the appellant failed to prove any sufficient cause for the said inordinate delay. Accordingly, the contention raised by Ld. DR for the department is that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), and as such, present appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.
Asia Biotech Pvt. Ltd., jaipur.
As is available from record, intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, was issued on 31.01.2016. The assessee presented the appeal before Learned CIT(A) on 05.02.2025. U/s 246(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee was required to present appeal within 30 days from the date of service of intimation order.
Date of the passing of the impugned intimation is on 31.10.2016. When the prescribed period of 30 days as provided u/s 246(1)(a) of the Act is calculated, from the said date, appeal filed before Learned CIT(A) was barred by limitation for more 3300 days.
Learned CIT(A) was of the view that the appellant had failed to prove any sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal there, and as such, he dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay.
As noticed above, the assessee-appellant did not care to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on the previous date. Notwithstanding absence on behalf of the appellant, in the interest of justice, the appeal was adjourned for today. But, none has cared and dared to appear on behalf of the appellant to satisfy that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or irregularity.
In absence of any material on record to prove that the appellant was prevented from filing of the appeal within stipulated period of 30 days from Asia Biotech Pvt. Ltd., jaipur. 31.01.2016, impugned order deserves to be upheld and present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Result 10. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed, while upholding the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A). File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/09/2025.