Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD
आदेश / ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.06.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 02.12.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18.
The defect memo was issued to the assessee wherein it was brought to his notice that there is a delay of 192 days in filing of the captioned appeal as against the period of 177 days shown by him in his application for condonation of delay. In the above-mentioned case, order was passed by the NFAC dated 15.06.2022 which as stated by the assessee at Column 3(c) of the memorandum of appeal was received by him on the same date. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position defect memo was issued to the assessee on 24.02.2023, both at the e-mail address that was provided by him in Form 36 as well as through registered post, wherein he was called upon to explain as to why the delay involved in filing of the appeal may not be taken as 192 days. Although the assessee was afforded a time period of 10 days for filing an explanation, however, he had 3 Mohan Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur chosen not to file any reply as regards the same. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that the assessee has nothing to say as regards the letter issued by the registry with respect to the actual period of delay involved in filing of the captioned appeal. For the sake of clarity the defect memo issued by the registry is culled out as under:
4 Mohan Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur As per the status of the track consignment of the registered letter i.e. consignment No.RC356566130IN, the aforesaid defect memo was delivered to the addressee on 27.02.2023. For the sake of clarity the track consignment of the aforesaid defect memo is culled out as under:
5 Mohan Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur
Considering the aforesaid factual position, I am of the considered view that as the assessee had neither come forth with any application explaining the aforesaid delay of 192 days, therefore, I am constrained to dismiss the captioned appeal which had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit as not maintainable.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations.