Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee has filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which upheld the orders of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals were listed for hearing, but none appeared on behalf of the Assessee.
Held
The Tribunal noted that notices were repeatedly issued to the Assessee, but no one appeared, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Additionally, there was a significant delay in filing the appeals, and the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the Assessee's non-appearance and the delay in filing, without a proper explanation.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
ORDER PER BENCH: These are appeals preferred by the Assessee the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under:-
ITAs No.1361 to 1364/Del/2023 . FAA who passed Appeal No. & Date of AO who passed the the appellate order order of the Ld. FAA assessment order & Date of order 1361/Del/2023 CIT(A)-28, New Delhi 26/10340/2018-19 ACIT, CC-13, New dated 27.09.2022 Delhi, dated 24.12.2018 1362/Del/2023 - DO - - DO - 26/10343/2018-19 dated 27.09.2022 - DO - - DO - 1363/Del/2023 26/10370/2018-19 dated 27.09.2022 - DO - 26/10381/2018-19 - DO - 1364/Del/2023 dated 27.09.2022
At the time of hearing, none has appeared for the assessee. The record shows that notices have been repeatedly issued to the assessee since 2023 October. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals, thus, no further notices are justified.
On hearing ld. DR, it was observed that there is a delay of 156 days in filing the appeals and though an application has been filed, the grounds mentioned of some glitches in upholding the appeal electronically do not appear to be well explained. Thus, we are inclined to dismiss the appeals barred by limitation. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025.