Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, against an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal arises from an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the I.T. Act. The assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 606 days and an application for condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative did not appear on multiple hearing dates, and no proper justification for the delay or non-appearance was provided. The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of sufficient reasons for delay.
Sections Cited
250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. &
आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA JM;
Captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, is directed against order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 26/05/2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, on dated 16/12/2019.
The Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as follows :-
1. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 22,12,000/-, The same needs cancellation.
2. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 22,12,000/- without cogent reason or cogent material brought on records, The same needs cancellation.
3. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 22,12,000/- without giving proper opportunity and adequately considering the matter. The same needs cancellation.
4. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 22,12,000/- based on irrelevant consideration. The same needs cancellation.
5. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 22,12,000/- based on presumption and surmises. The same needs cancellation.
6. Taking into consideration legal, statutory, factual and administrative aspects no addition as made ought to have been made. The same needs cancellation.
7. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due deductions while completing assessments. The same needs to be allowed.
8. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due exemption while completing assessments. The same needs to be allowed.
9. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts without considering peak position and making due inquiry while completing assessments. The same needs to be allowed.
10. Without prejudice, the assessment made being illegal, void, bad in law and against statutory provisions, needs annulment.
Without prejudice, The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that the initiations of the assessment proceeding is itself beyond limitation as prescribe. The same needs to be quashed. 12 Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. A.O. while completing assessment. The same needs annulment. 13. Without prejudice, there being no legal service of the notice of hearing issued and therefore the assessment needs annulment. 14. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all grounds of appeal
before the actual hearing takes place.
3. That appeal filed by the assessee on 28.03.2025 while the order of Ld. CIT(A) was served on 26.05.2023 Hence, there is a delay of 606 days in filing the appeal. That the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal. That application runs as under :- “I/We have filled an appeal on 27 103/2025 With the Hon ITAT Rajkot. The appeal filed is late.
2. Reasons for filling of delay are reasonable and sufficient cause. The details of the same will be furnished with evidence at the time of regular hearing of appeal so that the same can be considered together with merits of the case as per guidelines prevailing in the decisions of Hon Supreme court, and Hon. Gujarat High Court.”
4. As per the condonation of delay the evidence and the reasons for delay in filing the appeal will be submitted at the time of hearing of the assessee. That the assessee has submitted written submission along with saving Bank account details and RTGS (cheque) of Rs. 20,00,000/- were submitted on 01.10.2025. before this bench that till the date of final hearing i.e. 08.10.2025, no evidence and no reasons for condonation of delay has been submitted to this bench. That on date of hearing i.e. on 08.10.2025 nobody presents on behalf of the assessee.
We have heard the Ld. AR we note that no body appeal on date of hearing 18.08.2025, 28.08.2025, 01.10.2025, 08.10.2025 only on 01.10.202 written submission were submitted. We are of the view, that none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee or application seeking time, it can be presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P)Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). Before parting, it would be appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there existed a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, assessee would be at liberty, if so advised, to seek for a recall of this order. In the result, the appeals of the Assessee is dismissed in limine.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09 / 12 /2025.