SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL,DHANBAD vs. ITO, DHANBAD
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2016-17, but it was delayed by 296 days. The revenue contended that no proper condonation application was filed, and that the assessment and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte with no evidence produced by the assessee at earlier stages.
Held
The Tribunal found that the condonation petition lacked specific reasons or details for the 296-day delay. Citing the assessee's 'lackadaisical attitude' and failure to substantiate their case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the delay in filing was not sufficiently explained.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 296 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, given the reasons provided by the assessee in the condonation petition.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC BENCH”, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC BENCH”, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH HYBRID MODE) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.103/RAN/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Dhanbad Manaitand, Dhanbad Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AITPJ 3446 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..
निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 16.04.2024 for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. Sr DR that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 296 days for which no condonation application has been filed. It was also the submission that the assessment order is an ex-parte order and also no evidence has been produced before the ld.CIT(A). 4. I have considered the submissions of the ld.Sr.DR. A perusal of the facts of the present case shows that the appeal of the assessee is delayed
2 ITA No.103/Ran/2025 by 296 days. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which reads as under :-
The condonation petition does not mention anything about the number of days of delay nor does it give any reason. It is not even mentioned as to who is the lawyer who was handling the appeal of the
3 ITA No.103/Ran/2025 assessee before the first appellate authority. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that it is an ex-parte assessment order. Even before the ld. CIT(A) no details have been filed, which clearly shows that the assessee is not serious in pursuing his appeal. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) considering the lackadaisical attitude of the assessee has restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication so as to grant the assessee adequate opportunity. It is noticed that still the assessee has not done anything to substantiate its case but has filed appeal before the Tribunal that too belatedly. This being so, I am of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is not substantiated and consequently the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/11/2025.
Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यायिक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER रधाँची Ranchi; दिनांक Dated 24/11/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलिपि अग्रेपर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- . 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकि आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. निभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकि अपीलीय अनर्किण, रधाँची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अिीिीय अधर्करण, रधाँची / ITAT, Ranchi
