PATINHARE PURAYIL JAYAPRASANTH,KANNUR vs. ITO,WARD-4, KANNUR

ITA 1045/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 February 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)2 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 presumed that the appellant had no explanation for the delay in presenting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine on the ground of delay, without going into the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 for Assessment Year 2011-12. There was a significant delay of 143 days in filing this appeal, and the appellant did not submit any petition seeking condonation of this delay.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed with a delay of 143 days, without a petition for condonation of delay, should be admitted by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Hearing: 04.02.2025Pronounced: 12.02.2025

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 28.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

At the outset we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 143 days. The appellant not filed any petition seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, I presume that the appellant has no explanation for the delay in presenting the appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine on the ground of delay.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →