Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against penalty orders under Section 271C for A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17, but these appeals were filed with an inordinate delay of 643 days. The assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay or provide an explanation for the significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal determined that the appeals were not maintainable as the assessee failed to explain the 643-day delay or seek condonation. Consequently, the appeals were held to be barred by limitation and liable for dismissal.
Key Issues
Whether appeals filed with an inordinate delay of 643 days, without a condonation application or sufficient explanation for the delay, are maintainable and not barred by limitation.
Sections Cited
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.