Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was directed against a CIT(A) order that had dismissed their appeal due to a significant delay of 735 days in its presentation. The initial assessment by the AO was made ex-parte under Section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to appear. The CIT(A) rejected the application for condonation of delay, finding no sufficient cause as per Section 249(3) read with Section 5 of The Limitation Act.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance throughout all levels of proceedings. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to the prolonged delay and the assessee's failure to demonstrate any sufficient cause. The impugned order was found to be just and proper given the assessee's lackadaisical approach.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for a delay of 735 days in filing, and whether the assessee showed sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) read with Section 5 of The Limitation Act.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 249(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 5 of The Limitation Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against an order dated 22.12.2023 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), New Delhi, arising out of the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) under Section144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Page1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It appears from the records that previously also no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on the dates of hearing of the matter. Further that, upon perusal of the order passed by the AO, it is found that the assessee did not appear though several notices were issued to him and having no other alternative the order passed ex-parte. Before the Learned CIT(A) there has been a considerable delay of 735 days in presenting the appeal. In the absence of sufficient cause shown by the assessee the said appeal stood dismissed. While dismissing the appeal the Learned CIT(A) observed as follows:
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under Section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment order. I am also satisfied that the appellant has not been able to show any “sufficient cause” for not presenting the appeal within the said prescribed period, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, read with Section 5 of The Limitation Act. The application seeking Condonation of delay in presenting the appeal is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits.” Even today before the Bench the assessee failed to represent. I do not find any reason to entertain this appeal Page2 rather based upon the facts available from the orders of the authorities below having regard to the lackadaisical approach of the assessee the impugned order is found to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. The appeal, preferred by the assessee, is thus, dismissed.