Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order for AY 2012-13, which was passed under Section 143(3)/144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was significantly delayed by 581 days. The assessee claimed the delay occurred because a former accountant resigned and retained files, and the issue only came to light during a subsequent audit for AY 2018-19. An affidavit for condonation of delay was submitted by Shri Devang Jayantilal Shah.
Held
The Tribunal found the affidavit for condonation of delay to be defective as it lacked proper attestation and clarity on the deponent's capacity and details of who was assigned the task of filing the appeal. The reasons provided for the delay were deemed insufficient, and it was also noted that no replies were furnished to the specific queries raised by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 581 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the legal validity of the condonation application and affidavit.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 03.03.2017 under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred “the Act” ) passed by the learned Commissioner
Income-Tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi in an appeal before him arising out of assessment order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the ITO, Ward-17, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the A.O. or in short “AO”) under Section 143(3)/144 of the Act for assessment year 2012- 13.
Heard and perused the record. As the case was called for hearing, none appeared for and on behalf of the assessee and record shows ever since institution of appeal, repeated notices have been issued but assessee has not appeared and on only one occasion i.e. 22.11.2022 in written request was received and on 08.05.2023, Shri S. Sinha, CA had appeared and sought adjournment, notices also served through the department and a report dated 04.05.2023 of ITO, Ward-17, New Delhi is filed that at the given address, assessee was not found available. No more opportunity justified.
Arguments of learned Departmental Representative were heard who pointed out that the appeal has been filed delayed by 581 days.
In this context, we find an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit of one Shri Devang Jayantilal Shah who has deposed the facts of application to be correct is filed wherein it is 21.06.2017. It is mentioned that Accountant had resigned in the month of June 2012 and the files were retained by the Accountant. The files were lying with the said Accountant and were not handed over to new CA and during the very audit of financial year 2018-19, status of the case was asked by the auditor and it came to the notice of assessee’s company on an inquiry made by the audit team that the appeal has not been filed.
As we appreciate, the application and the affidavit it comes up that the application and affidavit are filed by one Shri Devang Jayanti Lal Shah, but, in what capacity, the same have been filed is not appearing, although. In Form-36, though, the signatures appear as Director. The affidavit as filed is not attested as required under law to be attested bringing categorically as to what part is deposed on an knowledge and what part is deposed on the information and belief.
There is no mention of any person who was assigned the task of filing the appeal of the concerned professional and who had handled the matter. As we appreciate the assessment order, it cannot be seen that before the assessing officer, no replies were filed to the specific queries. Thus, we are not inclined to extend any benefit to the assessee and the reasons cited in the application are insufficient for any condonation. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed barred by limitation.