JAGDISHCHANDRA CHIMANLAL .PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 351/AHD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 December 2022AY 2006-072 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 assessees showed deliberate negligence in prosecuting their appeals. Due to the substantial delay and lack of any condonation application or appearance, the Tribunal was unable to exercise its discretionary power to admit the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessees filed appeals before the ITAT with a significant delay of over five years and short payment of appeal fees. Despite multiple hearing dates and notices, the assessees or their representatives failed to appear or provide any explanation for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals filed with a huge delay and short payment of fees, without any explanation or appearance by the assessee, should be admitted by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA

Hearing: 06/12/2022Pronounced: 06/12/2022

(Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee by Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 06/12/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R The present two appeals have been filed by the above two assessees against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Gandhinagar in short referred to as ld.CIT(A)) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 28.4.2015 and 25.5.2015 pertaining to Asst.Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively.

2.

When the both matters were taken up for hearing, Registry has pointed out that appeal in the case Shri Jagdish Chandra Chimanlal was delayed by 1820 days besides the appeal fee paid was short by Rs.921/-; and in the case of Manjulaben Jagdish Patel, appeal is & 352/Ahd/2020 2 time barred by 1792 days. None appeared on behalf of the assessees at the time of hearing to present their respective cases.

3.

It is noticed that the both appeals of the assessees was presented on 22.6.2020, and the Registry has pointed out to them the defects including huge delay of more than five years. But, the assessee has not filed any delay condonation application to explain the reason for the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and come forward to remove deficiency in appeal fee paid. Order sheet shows that the appeals of the assessees were listed for hearing on six occasions i.e. from 21-04-2022 to 6-12-2022, but in all the occasions, none appeared on behalf of the assessees. Looking to this conduct of the assessee throughout the proceedings that the assessee or their representative have not come forward not only to make good of the insufficiency of appeal fee and also explain for the huge delay, it is clear that there is a deliberate negligence on the part of the assessees to prosecute their appeals before the Tribunal and on such assessee no latitude can be shown. Therefore, I am unable to exercise my discretionary power to admit the appeals filed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed as un-admitted.

4.

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed as unadmitted.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →