SHRI KALPESH V. GAJJAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-7, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2345/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 August 2017AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the condonation petition to be vague and lacking in specific details or evidence to explain the inordinate delay. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the petition.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT which was time-barred by 1122 days. The assessee sought condonation of the delay through a petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the provided petition. The adequacy of the explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Pramod Kumar, AM:

1.

This appeal is time bared by 1122 days. 2. The authorised representative of the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay. This petition, which is not supported by any evidence, affidavit or even confirmation by the appellant, states as follows :- “To The Chairman, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 3rd Floor, Abhinav Arcade, Ahmedabad. Respected Sir,

ITA No.2345/Ahd/2014 A.Y.: 2007-08 Page 2 of 3 Sub: Request to condone delay in filling appeal against order passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2007-08 I had filed an appeal to CIT(A)-VI 08.04.2013 against order passed by A.O. In response to such appeal Ld. CIT passed an order and dispatched the same due to change the residence address, the order was misplaced my staff. However, there was huge payment of STT as tax, there was no demand after getting notice of u/s 271(1)(c), we inquired and found the order. Therefore, there is inordinate delay. Due to this mistake, we could not file an appeal within the stipulated period but as soon as we have received the copy of such order we have preferred an appeal against this order. Therefore, we request you to condone the delay in filling such appeal and accept this appeal. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For, Kalpesh V. Gajjar (A.R.)”

3.

We have perused the petition. We find that it is a vague petition, it does not give any specific details and it does not adequately explain even the delay. The matter has been dealt with in a casual and superficial manner. 4. In view of the above and as we are not inclined to condone this delay – which is not at all explained properly, we reject the appeal as time barred. As the condonation petition and the appeal are dismissed, we see no need to deal with the adjournment petition on the ground that the case details are under compilation. That aspect of the matter is wholly academic for us. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 17th day of August, 2017. Sd/- Sd/- Mahavir Prasad Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 17th day of August, 2017

ITA No.2345/Ahd/2014 A.Y.: 2007-08 Page 3 of 3

PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →