Loading judgment…
Facts
14 appeals from different assessees belonging to the Shri Deepak Agarwal, Shri Mukesh Kumar & Others Group were heard together, challenging orders of the CIT(A)-28. All appeals were delayed by 145 to 206 days, and the condonation applications provided "unavailability of required counsel" as the reason, which was not deemed plausible by the Tribunal. Additionally, notices issued to the assessees were returned unserved.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed all 14 appeals, finding them non-maintainable due to the absence of a valid explanation for the significant delay in filing. The stated reason of "unavailability of required counsel" was not considered a plausible ground for condonation of delay. However, the assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again to revive their appeals with a proper justification for the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the "unavailability of required counsel" constitutes a plausible reason for condoning a significant delay (145-206 days) in filing appeals before the ITAT, thereby rendering the appeals maintainable.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
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.