Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file a Return of Income for AY 2017-18. The AO passed an assessment order under section 144, adding Rs. 72,60,500/- for cash deposits in demonetized currency. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's belated appeal due to delay. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT with a 618-day delay, seeking condonation based on the Director's accident and ongoing Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings.
Held
The ITAT found no sufficient cause to condone the 618-day delay, stating that the Director's accident occurred much earlier and the DRT proceedings were not directly against the assessee company for the relevant period. The tribunal concluded that the reasons provided did not justify the delay in filing the income tax appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed as the delay was not condoned.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 618-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Whether the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were justified.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 144, Section 142, Section 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2017-18 dated 24.08.2023 emanating from the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.09.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
[A] “1. The Id AO was not justified in passing the order, which is badinlaw, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.
The Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.
The Id CIT(A) was not justified in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant, without deciding the appeal on merits, and that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to present his case.
4. The Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 72,60,500/- u/s 69A without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The appellant carves leave to add, amend OR modify any of the grounds of appeal
.”
2. There has been a delay in filling appeal before ITAT of 618 days. Basic Facts of the Case :
3. In this case the Assessee has not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18. The Income Tax Officer ward 3 Panvel (Assessing Officer -AO) issued Notice u/s.142 dated 11/12/2017. However, assessee neither filed any reply to the notice nor filed Return of income. Assessing Officer had received Information that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.72,60,500/- in demonetized currency during 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016. The AO collected information from Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India. AO issued 2 various notices to the assessee, but assessee failed to file any reply.
Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 30/09/2019 the Assessee filed Belated Appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal in Form 35.
5. The Basic Facts are as under : Assessment Order Date of Order No replies filed during Assessment u/s 144 30/09/2019 Proceedings CIT(A) Appeal filed on Delay of 8 months in filling Appeal. 27/07/2020 NO reason mentioned for Delay. CIT(A) order u/s Order dated CIT(A) issued notices dated 250 24/08/2023. 21/01/21, 11/2/21, 18/3/21, 7/11/22, 2/8/23. NO Reply filed , NO reason for Delay filed before CIT(A).
Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee on account of Delay. It is an admitted fact by Ld.AR of the Assessee that NO Reason was filed before the CIT(A) for delay and NO condonation filed before the ld.CIT(A).
Aggrieved by the Order u/s.250 of the Act passed by ld.CIT(A) the assessee filed Appeal Before ITAT with a Delay of 618 days. Condonation :
7. Assessee filed appeal before ITAT with a delay of 618 days. The assessee filed an application for Condonation of Delay. Ld.AR relied on the application and read out relevant part of the application. In the said application for condonation the Assessee has mentioned Reasons in a Chart, the said Chart is reproduced here under :
In this case in the Condonation Application, the assessee has pleaded that Director of Assessee Company had an accident on 14/02/2016. As per the Doctor’s Certificate filed by the Assessee, the Doctor had advised Bed Rest for Two Months. 5
Another reason mentioned is that Proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal for an amount of Rs.25,48,72,992/. Assessee filed copy of Notice dated 26/02/2019 of Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal.
In this case the, Recovery Proceedings were initiated by Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal against following persons as per the Notice : Swarj Metal Anil Turkhiya Smt. Kiran Turkhiya.
11.1 Thus, apparently it is observed that the Recovery notice issued by Hon’ble Debt Recover Tribunal is not against Assessee Company. Mr.Anil Turkhiya is Director of Assessee but the Recovery Notice is apparently against Swaraj Metal which is Proprietary concern of Mr.Anil Turkhiya.
It is observed from the copies of documents filed that Mr.Anil Turkhiya had filed replies to the notices issued by Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6 13. From the chronology of events mentioned in the condonation application it is noted that Director of Assessee Company met with an accident on 14.02.2016 and was advised bed rest for two months.
The impugned Order u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act passed by ld.CIT(A) is dated 24/08/2023.
The date 24/08/2023 is much after 14/02/2016 when Assessee met with an accident. We have already mentioned that Doctor advised bed rest for two months. Rather Assessee had filed Appeal in Form 35 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) on 27/02/2020. Thus, the reason that Anil Turkhiya met with an accident does not explain delay after 24/08/2023. The medical papers filed by the assess all pertain to a period much before 24/08/2023. Hence the medical papers do not explain the delay in filling appeal before ITAT.
Another reason mentioned is Recover Proceedings. It is observed that Recovery Proceedings were stared in 2019 against Swaraj Metal, and its Proprietor Anil Turkhiya. Mr.Anil Turkhiya had filed replies before Hon’ble Debt Recover Tribunal since 2019 16.1 Thus, the impugned Debt Recovery proceedings, were not against Assessee, they were ongoing proceedings since 2019, wherein Mr.Anil Turkhiya filed his replies. Thus, the reason of Recover Proceeding against Swaraj Metal does not explain the delay of 618 Days in filling Appeal before ITAT.Rather the copies of the Correspondence filed shows that Mr.Anil Turkhiya had time to attend all other proceeding EXCEPT Income Tax Proceedings.
In these facts and Circumstances of the case, we are convinced that there was No Sufficient cause for Delay in Filling Appeal before ITAT.
17.1 Hence, Delay Not Condoned. Accordingly Appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed.
We have already reproduced the facts that Assessee has not complied Notices issued by ITO and ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), NOT filed Return of Income. This shows that Assessee is habitual defaulter. 8
Accordingly, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 January, 2026.