M/S NIRVANA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1077/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 February 2018AY 2004-054 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal to be neither plausible nor bonafide. The appellant did not adequately explain the substantial delay, especially the period after receiving the consequential order.

What were the facts?

The appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 935 days. The appellant cited business closure and employee desertion as reasons for the delay, but failed to explain a subsequent delay of 524 days after receiving a consequential order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had to decide if the reasons provided by the appellant were sufficient to overlook the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 18/12/2017Pronounced: 26/02/2018

This is an appeal filed by the appellant directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Bengaluru, dated 30/11/2011 for the assessment year 2004-05.

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 935 days. The order of the ld.CIT(Appeals) was served on the appellant on 30/11/2011.

The appeal should have been filed on or before 29/01/2012. The appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 21/08/2014 resulting in the delay of 935 days. The appellant has filed petition for condonation along with an affidavit, duly notarized which reads as under:

IT(TP)A No.1077/Bang/2014 Page 2 of 4

IT(TP)A No.1077/Bang/2014 Page 3 of 4

3.

Thus, according to the appellant, the delay had occurred on account of closing the business operations of the appellant, consequently the employees deserting the company etc. It also states that the appellant had come to know of the order of the ld.CIT(Appeals) only after receipt of the consequential order giving effect to the ld.CIT(Appeals) order on 15/03/2013 but the present appeal was filed on 21/08/2014 leaving a delay of 524 days, which remain unexplained by the appellant. Thus, we do not find the explanation tendered by the appellant is plausible, bonafide as the appellant had failed to explain the delay between the date of receipt of giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) and the actual date of filing this appeal which is more than one year. Further, the appellant also failed to explain as to how the person who finally took a decision to file present appeal could not take this decision at the time of receipt of the order of the ld.CIT(Appeals). The reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. Dy.CIT (398 ITR 250) does not come to the rescue of the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any reason to condone the delay.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →