What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide any supporting evidence, such as medical certificates, to substantiate the director's illness. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 570 days. The assessee cited the illness of a director as the reason for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and should be condoned.

Surlux Health Centre Limited vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G”BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode

Date of Hearing – 06.08.2019 Date of Order – 16.08.2019

O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M.

Captioned appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 21st March 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–8, Mumbai, for the assessment year 1995–96.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case in spite of notice of hearing having been issued through registered post with A/D. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the 2 Surlux Health Centre Ltd. assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

As admitted by the assessee, there is a delay of 570 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Shri Krishna Keshav Sarpotdar, one of the directors of the company. It is stated in the application, the said director, who looks after the company is a75-year-old man and does not attend office regularly. It is stated, due to illness the concerned director could not consult and file the appeal in time. In the accompanying affidavit, Shri S.K. Sarpotdar, has also stated that the delay in filing the appeal is due to his ill–health. However, no supporting evidence by way of medical certificate or any other documents have been furnished to demonstrate that the concerned director of the company was actually suffering from illness during the relevant period which prevented him from filing the appeal. Therefore, in the absence of any supporting evidence filed before us to prove the illness of the director resulting in delay,the statements made in the delay condonation application as well as in the affidavit are only general and self–serving statements. Therefore, in our view, the assessee has not made out a reasonable cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 570 days. Accordingly, not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee for the delay in 3 Surlux Health Centre Ltd. filing the appeal, we decline to condone the delay. Consequently, the present appeal by the assessee is dismissed in limine without being admitted.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.08.2019

SURLUX HEALTH CENTRE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments