FUTURE MONEY SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, A-28,NEAR BANKEY BIHARI TAMPEL RAJENDRA NAGER, BAREILLY-243001,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2),BAREILLY-NEW., BAREILLY-NEW

ITA 194/LKW/2023Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 October 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)12 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and did not present any material to explain the delay before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) beyond the prescribed 30-day limit, with a delay of 1546 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on grounds of limitation, finding no sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable due to sufficient cause, and whether the ITAT should entertain the appeal when the primary ground of appeal before the CIT(A) was limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 20/04/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2011-12. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

“1. That the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was passed without providing proper opportunity to the appellant and therefore, the same is void ab initio and bad in law.

2.

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in li

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →