SMT. TABASUM AMIN GANIE,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order, which originated from an ex-parte assessment made under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal to the tribunal was filed belatedly by 346 days, and despite receiving deficiency letters, the assessee failed to file an application for condonation of delay or rectify the pointed-out defects.
Held
The tribunal refused to condone the substantial delay, citing the absence of a condonation request, lack of sufficient reasons, the assessee's non-cooperation, and incorrect statements in the appeal memorandum. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 346 days in filing the appeal should be condoned; Whether the appeal is admissible given the absence of a condonation application and non-rectification of procedural deficiencies.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 217/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18
Smt. Tabasum Amin Ganie Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gulberg Colony Hyderpora, Ward-1, Srinagar H. No. 202, Sector 2, Srinagar 190014, J & K [PAN: AXOPA 0475E] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant by : None : Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025
ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 31.01.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has
emanated from the order of the AO, Srinagar u/s 144 of the Act, 1961 dated
31.12.2019.
2 I.T.A. No. 217/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of Delay: It is noted by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed
by 346 (three hundred and forty-six) days, and no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. It is evident from the memorandum of appeal in form 36, the assessee has stated in row serial – 3 that the order of the Ld. first appellate authority dated 31st January, 2024, has been received by the assessee on the same date (communication date ) and the due date of filing this appeal before the tribunal was within sixty days therefrom , but this appeal has been actually filed (dispatched) by speed post from Srinagar on 10th March, 2025 and received in this office on 12th March, 2025, which is belated by 346 days , and in appeal memorandum ROW No – 11, in response to the query “Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal? the answer stated therein is NO .
The registry has issued deficiency letter on 12th March, 2025, through registered 3. post, to the assessee, intimating the assessee to rectify the defects relating to the issue of (i) delayed filing, (ii) non availability of copy of grounds of appeal filed before first
appellate authority and (iii) Original Form 36 not in triplicate.
It is further seen from record that the registry has issued deficiency letter through email to the assessee ca.bashir@gmail.com on 11th August, 2025, requesting for removal of deficiency in filing of appeal memorandum.
3 I.T.A. No. 217/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5. Unfortunately, there is no response from the assessee or his Ld. AR, till date of
hearing.
It is further observed by us that the assessee has deposited the tribunal fees on 31st January, 2025 ( challan / 02419 / BSR 6939001 ) , exactly one year after the date
of passing of the CIT(A) order dated 31/01/2024, which means the assessee was very
much aware that the appeal is barred by limitation and yet has not made any prayer for
condonation of the delay and has submitted incorrect statement by stating “ NO
DELAY ”.
There is no representation by the assessee or his Ld. AR on the date of hearing 23rd September, 2025, neither any adjournment has been filed nor the deficiency
pointed out has been cured (even after six months) and no prayer for condonation of
delay has been filed till date.
We further note that the assessment order has been passed ex-parte u/s 144
considering the SBN deposits in bank account of the assessee and the Ld. first appellate
authority has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee (as per para – 6 of the appellate
order) and has pointed out some arithmetical errors in para 5.6 , and has guided the
AO to rectify the said errors.
4 I.T.A. No. 217/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 9. As such we are of the opinion that no purpose will be served in adjourning the
hearing of this appeal, and we are of the belief that the assessee might not be interested
in pursuing the appeal.
The Ld. DR is present in the court.
As such on the face of such non cooperating from the assessee, we refuse to
condone the enormous delay of 346 days (three hundred forty six days ) in filing the
appeal by the assessee, more so in absence of any prayer for condonation of delay being
filed before us and in absence of sufficient reasons being shown and also for stating
incorrect particulars in the memorandum of appeal in row – 11 ( of form 36 ).
As such the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being not admissible on the
grounds of delay and for non-curing of various deficiencies pointed out by the registry.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
However, the assessee will be at liberty to apply for restoration of this appeal on
showing sufficient cause explaining the delay, if the assessee so desires.
5 I.T.A. No. 217/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 10.11.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
