MAHESH GURRAM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Hyderabad-9 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2020-21/1027691960(1) dated 11.08.2020, arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 21.03.2014 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as time barred.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with the delay of 517 days by raising the following grounds of appeal :

At the outset, the Ld.AR in the present case, Shri C.Subrahmanyam, filed a petition for withdrawing Vakalat as the assessee has not provided the required documents to pursue the appeal. He has also informed the same to the assessee who was also present in the court for hearing. The assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that there was huge delay of 3 years 4 months in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the assessee has not given valid reasons to condone the delay before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time barred. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with the delay of 517 days, but the assessee has not given any reason to explain the delay before the Tribunal inspite of giving several opportunities. Therefore, the Ld.DR pleaded to dismiss the appeal in-limine.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed this appeal, observing that “considering the unsubstantiated, incorrect and misleading statements and the overall conduct of the appellant, substantial delay of 3 years 4 months 18 days, in filing the appeal, cannot be condoned. No reasonable cause for the delay has been brought on record. Accordingly, the appeal is not Mahesh Gurram, Visakhapatnam admitted and dismissed as time barred.” After considering the above observation of the Ld.CIT(A), it is clear that the assessee has not given justification to condone huge delay of 3 years 4 months 18 days before the Ld.CIT(A). Even the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal with a huge delay of 517 days. When the assessee was asked by the Bench about the delay of 517 days to prefer this appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee replied that he was suffering with ill health, due to which, he did not file the appeal on time. Even though the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal has given sufficient time to file the condonation petition, the assessee has not filed condonation petition either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. The assessee has not filed any proof to establish that he was suffering with ill health. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee has substantiated his case neither before the Tribunal nor before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in-limine. Accordingly, the grounds raised