What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. No evidence was presented to justify the delay, such as issues with engaging a Chartered Accountant.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. There was a significant delay of 185 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had to decide if the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient.

Aslam Harun Memon, Thane vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Hearing: 03.08.2017Pronounced: 26.10.2017

Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.05.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

During the course of hearing, we find that there was a delay of 185 days in filing the appeal before us. Assessee has filed the affidavit before us but during the course of hearing the assessee did not point out that he was not able to engage the Chartered

2 Shri Aslam Harun Memon Accountant and there was no certificate from the Chartered Accountant regarding not handling the case properly. Therefore, in absence of satisfactory explanation, we do not condone the delay and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.10.2017.

ASLAM HARUN MEMON,THANE vs. ITO WD 4(1), THANE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments