Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, ALM Infotech City Pvt. Ltd., appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15, which stemmed from an assessment under section 143(3). The appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 452 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to an ex-employee retaining the CIT(A) order, but this reason was not substantiated by an affidavit.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and found the explanation for the significant 452-day delay in filing the appeal to be unsubstantiated. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the appeal being dismissed as barred by limitation.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone a 452-day delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.06.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No. 362/16-17 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 30.09.2016, passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Circle 2(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
Heard and perused the record. At the time of hearing, none has appeared for the assessee. The record shows that on certain occasions different counsels have appeared and sought adjournment. Notices have been issued by e-mail also. No more opportunity is justified. Accordingly, arguments of ld. DR were heard.
In regard appeal in hand it comes up that for AY 2014-15, the impugned order of ld.CIT(A) was passed on 27.06.2017 while the appeal in the Tribunal have been instituted on 7th January, 2019. Thus, the said appeal is delayed by 452 days. In the application filed for condonation of the delay, the reason attributed is that the copy of order of ld.CIT(A) was with one employee Babu Sharma who had left the job and, therefore, there was delay. This assertion is not supported with any affidavit of any person. There is no material to substantiate this assertion. The record shows that after filing the appeal, in spite of notices, there is no prsoecution of the same before this Tribunal also. Thus, it is not a fit case to allow the condonation of delay and, accordingly, the application is dismissed. This appeal is consequentially dismissed being barred by limitation.