Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders dated 06.08.2024 for assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The appeals were filed with significant delays of 2193 days and 1101 days respectively. The assessee failed to provide supporting documentary evidence for the reasons of delay.
Held
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the affidavits for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals in limine. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders, noting the lack of reasonable cause and supporting evidence for the inordinate delays.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals was sufficiently justified by supporting documentary evidence, warranting condonation.
Sections Cited
143(3), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद� के सम� । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2562 & 2563/Chny/2024 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Banyan Projects India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 770, 100 Ft Road, Bangalore North, Income Tax, Bangalore 560 038. Corporate Range 1, Chennai. [PAN: AADCB6525D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders both dated 06.08.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16.
We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set exparte. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR basing on the material available on record.
Since issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of ld. DR, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
– AY: 2013-14 4. We find that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 09.03.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14 and the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 11.04.2022 with a delay of 2193 days in filing the appeal. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay on 11.04.2022 and after considering the submissions made in the affidavit, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the affidavit for condonation of abnormal delay of 2193 days since the assessee could not file any supporting documentary evidence for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
The ld. DR Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) afforded various opportunities to the assessee to substantiate along with supporting documentary evidence for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay of 2193 days in filing appeal and the assessee failed to do so. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed.
We note that the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of inordinate delay of 2193 days in filing the appeal and the averments made in the affidavit are reproduced at para 2.1 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) elaborately discussed the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay at para 2.14 of the impugned order. We also noted that despite various opportunities afforded by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to substantiate along with supporting documentary evidence for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee did not file any supporting documentary evidence to substantiate the reasonable/sufficient cause for the delay. In the absence of any supporting documentary evidence to substantiate the reasonable cause for the inordinate delay, the ld. CIT(A) rightly rejected the affidavit for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the affidavit for condonation of abnormal delay of 2193 days in filing the appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
AY: 2015-16 7. In this case, the assessment for AY 2015-16 was completed under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 14.03.2019 and the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 22.04.2022 with a delay of 1101 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A) and the submissions made in the affidavit are reproduced at para 2.1 of the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order at para 2.2, we note that the ld. CIT(A) afforded various opportunities to the assessee to substantiate with supporting documentary evidence on the grounds stated in the affidavit, but, however, the assessee failed to do so. Further, we note that the ld. CIT(A) elaborately discussed on the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay at para 2.14 of the impugned order. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee did not file any supporting documentary evidence to substantiate the reasonable/sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any material evidence in support of the affidavit filed to substantiate sufficient cause for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) rightly rejected the affidavit and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the affidavit for condonation of abnormal delay of 1101 days in filing the appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 19th December, 2024 at Chennai.