MUNCIPAL CORPORATION,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 July 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was an inordinate delay of 643 days in filing the appeals. Since the assessee neither filed an application for condonation of delay nor provided any sufficient cause for the delay, the appeals were deemed not maintainable as they were barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against penalty orders passed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeals were filed on 02.01.2025 against impugned orders dated 23.01.2023, resulting in a delay of 643 days.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals filed with an unexplained and inordinate delay, without any application for condonation, are maintainable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam

Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing: 28/07/2025
Hearing: 28/07/2025

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, both dated 23.01.2023, arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the A.Y.2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively.

2.

There is a delay of 643 days in filing these two appeals. The assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay nor has explained the cause of delay, either in the pleadings or otherwise. The Ld.AR of the assessee has also shown his handicapness to explain the cause of delay, as he has mentioned that despite his best efforts, the assessee has not brought any facts leading to the delay of 643 days.

3.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR has submitted that there is inordinate delay of 643 days in filing these two appeals of the assessee. The assessee has not explained any cause of delay, much less the sufficient cause in filing these appeals. Accordingly, he has submitted that these two appeals of the assessee are not maintainable, being barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed in-limine.

4.

Having considered the submissions of the Ld.AR as well as the Ld.DR and careful perusal of the record available before us, at the outset, we note that these two appeals were filed by the assessee on 02.01.2025 against the impugned orders dated 23.01.2023. Therefore, there is a gap of about two years in filing these appeals after the impugned orders were passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor otherwise explained the cause of delay. In Form-36, the assessee has accepted the date of communication as 23.01.2023 and therefore, the delay of 643 days in filing these two appeals has not been explained by the assessee. Accordingly, these two appeals of the assessee are found to be not maintainable, being barred by limitation and consequently liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.

5.

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →