AASTHA MINIMET INDIA LTD,BENGALURU vs. ACIT.CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligent attitude and failure to comply with procedural requirements, including the absence of a delay condonation application and non-appearance. The Assessment Order was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and the CIT(A) had also passed an ex-parte order.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order with a delay of 1527 days. Despite repeated defect notices from the Tribunal registry regarding the lack of a delay condonation application, the assessee failed to file one. The assessee also did not appear before the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee, with a significant delay and without a condonation application, should be entertained by the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & PADMAVATHY SR
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of CIT(A) dated 31.10.2019, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2013-14.
There is a delay of 1527 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has not filed a delay condonation application in spite of the defect notice issued by Registry stating that no delay condonation application has been filed. The first defect notice was issued from the Office of the ITAT on 07.03.2024 and second was issued on 11.06.2024. The defect notices were sent to the assessee’s email ID and postal address provided in Form 36. This appeal was posted number of times. Neither the assessee nor the AR of the assessee appeared before the Tribunal. Assessee seems to have a very negligent and nonchalant attitude. We find that the Assessment Order has been completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Further, we notice that in spite of several hearing opportunities provided to the assessee by the CIT(A), assessee had appeared only once i.e., on 19.09.2018. Therefore, CIT(A) also has passed an ex-parte Order. On the facts of the instant case, since assessee has not even filed a delay condonation application in spite of repeated defect notices issued from the Office of the Tribunal, we reject the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 1527 days in filing the appeal before us. Therefore, we refrain from adjudicating the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026