Loading judgment…
Facts
This order consolidates 14 separate appeals by assessees from the Shri Deepak Agarwal, Shri Mukesh Kumar & Others Group against orders of the CIT(A) for different assessment years. The appeals were filed with significant delays, ranging from 145 to 206 days, and the Tribunal's notices were returned unserved with the remark “no such person found”. The assessees sought condonation of delay, citing "unavailability of required counsel" as the reason.
Held
The Tribunal held that "unavailability of required counsel" is not a plausible reason for condoning the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, all 14 appeals were considered non-maintainable due to the lack of a valid explanation for the delay and were dismissed. However, the assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reviving the appeals with a valid explanation.
Key Issues
Whether 'unavailability of required counsel' is a plausible reason for condoning significant delay in filing appeals; and the maintainability of appeals filed with delays ranging from 145 to 206 days.
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.