What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no cogency in the reasons provided for the delay and noted the assessee's lack of cooperation at the lower appellate level. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 1119 days. The assessee cited financial crisis, business closure, disturbed state of mind, and ignorance of technicalities as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

Sandeep Jain vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakkar, Smt. N. Hemlatha

For Respondent: Smt. N. Hemlatha

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 18.02.2014, Mumbai and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 1119 days in filing this appeal before the tribunal. For reasonable cause of the delay, it has been submitted by the assessee that he has himself caused the delay due to financial crisis, closure of business, disturbed state of mind and ignorance of technicalities of the court.

(A.Y. 2009-10) Sandeep Jain vs. ITO 3. Upon careful consideration and perusing the records, I find that there is no cogency in the reasonable cause attributed for seeking the condonation of this delay of over three years in filing the appeal. I also note that the assessee had not co-operated at the level of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also. Accordingly, I decline to condone the delay of three years in filing the appeal. Hence, this appeal by the assessee is dismissed in limine being time-barred.

SANDEEP JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments