Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and the appeal was found to be defective, including being time-barred by 247 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective due to multiple reasons, including being time-barred, lacking a proper condonation application, and grounds not arising from the order appealed against. The memorandum of appeal was also improperly signed.
Key Issues
Maintainability of the appeal due to time-bar, defects in filing, and improper documentation.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 28.10.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and nor any application for adjournment has been filed. Even in the earlier [Devang Ravishankar Pandya vs. CIT(A)] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – occasion when the appeal was fixed for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. Notice, thereafter, was directed to be issued by RPAD. However, none has come present even today for the assessee. Besides, I have noted that the assessee’s appeal is defective and the assessee had been notified so pointing out the defects as under:
“1. Appeal is time-barred by 247 days. 2. (EF) Affidavit in support of Petition for condoning the delay in filing appeal/application is not uploaded. 3. (EF) Complete address not (correctly) filled in Respondent's personal information 4. (EF) Date of service/communication of order in Column 3(c) not (correctly) filled in 5. (EF) Grounds of appeal filed before Tribunal not arising out of order appealed against
6. (EF) Memorandum of appeal not (properly) signed/verified by the person authoried u/s 140 of the IT Act, 1961
7. (EF) Name/designation not (correctly) filled in Respondent's personal information
8. (EF) Respondent's name/designation in Cause Title not (correctly) filled
9. Respondent's Personal Information is not filled.”
The said defects have not been rectified till date. In view of the above, I find no reason to entertain assessee’s appeal, more importantly, considering the fact that it is time barred by 247 days and there is no proper application filed supported by an affidavit for condonation of the delay in the filing of the appeal. Further, the grounds of appeal raised before me are noted to be [Devang Ravishankar Pandya vs. CIT(A)] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – not arising out of the order appealed against and even the memorandum of appeal is not properly signed and verified by the person authorized u/s.140 of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non-maintainable.
This Order pronounced on 08/01/2026