ITO, MEERUT vs. M/S. CCS UNIVERSITY, MEERUT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since no application for condonation of delay was filed by the revenue, and no explanation was provided for the delay, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed appeals against an order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's appeals. The departmental appeals were found to be time-barred by 9 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the departmental appeals were maintainable due to being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without any condonation application.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. BHAVNESH SAINI & SH. L. P. SAHU
Both the appeals by revenue are directed against the common order of Ld. CIT(A), Meerut, dated 25.11.2013 for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 u/s 201(1) read with Section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
Ld. CIT(A) considering, the issue in detailed held that even services rendered by the examiner cannot even be brought within the preview of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The appeals of the assessee were accordingly allowed. 3. According to the office of the Tribunal departmental appeals are time barred by 9 days. The revenue was served with the defect notice intimating appeals are time barred. However, the revenue did not file any application for condonation of delay in explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal in the office of the Tribunal. 4. On the last date of hearing i.e 05.10.2017, Ld. DR seeks time to move applications for condonation of delay in both the appeals. Both the appeals were adjourned for 14.11.2017. However, till date no application has been filed for condonation of dealy in filing the departmental appeals beyond the period of limitation. No explanation or material filed on record to explain the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. Thus, both the appeals of the revenue are time barred. In the absence of any explanation from the side of the revenue, both the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed being time barred. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed being time barred. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.11.2017.
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026