GAP TRADING & INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the explanation of "unavailability of required counsel" insufficient for condoning the significant delay in filing appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation, although liberty was granted to the assessees to revive them with a proper justification.
What were the facts?
Multiple assessees filed 14 separate appeals, all of which were delayed by 145 to 206 days. Applications for condonation of delay were filed, citing "unavailability of required counsel" as the reason, while notices issued by the tribunal were returned unserved with remarks like "no such person found".
What were the issues?
Whether delay in filing appeals can be condoned based on "unavailability of required counsel," and the maintainability of appeals filed with significant and inadequately explained delays.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Heard together (14 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
The above captioned 14 separate appeals are by different assessees belonging to Shri Deepak Agarwal, Shri Mukesh Kumar & Others Group of cases. The appeals are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)–28, New Delhi passed on different dates for captioned different assessment years respectively.
Since the underlying facts are common in all the appeals of the assessee, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
From the perusal of the appeals, it is noticed that the appeals of all the assessees are delayed by days ranging from 145 to 206 days. For each assessee, they have filed application for condonation of delay.
We also find that notices issued have been returned back unserved with the postal remark “no such person found”.
5. The typical and common plea of the assessees in their condonation application is that there was “unavailability of required counsel”. We are of the opinion that such an explanation cannot be considered as plausible reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.
In view of the above factual finding, appeals of all the assessee are considered non-maintainable having no valid explanation for delay in filing the appeals and are hereby dismissed.
However, liberty is given to the assessees to approach the Tribunal for reviving the instant appeals with valid explanation.
In the result, all the captioned 14 appeals of the different assessees are dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.09.2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
