SHRI TULSIDHARAN BHASKARAN,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that in the absence of a proper application for condonation of delay, the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a delay of 692 days. The assessee did not respond to the defect memo issued by the registry regarding the delay, nor did they file an application for condonation of delay. Despite being served with hearing notices, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any submissions.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the assessee was admissible given the significant delay and the failure to provide any justification or application for condonation of the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Assessee by None. Revenue by Ms. Anupma Singla – Sr.DR 25/01/2022 Date of hearing 25/01/2022 Date of pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat dated 30.01.2015 for the A.Y. 2007-07. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law.
2. The reopening of the assessment is bad in law.
3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.43,88,324/- on account of retention money. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same.”
2. Perusal of record reveals that impugned order was passed by the ld.CIT(A) on 30.01.2015 on this appeal was filed on 21.04.2017, thus, the appeal was filed after 692 days of period of limitation for filing appeal before Tribunal. On (AY 2007-08) Shri Tulsidharan Bhaskaran, Surat filing appeal, the registry of the Tribunal issued a defect memo to the assessee about the defect that appeal is barred by 692 days.
3. Further perusal of record reveals that the assessee has neither reply to the defect memo, nor filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The notice of hearing has been served on assessee on more than two occasions through registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD). Despite the service of notice neither the assessee appeared, nor sent any application for adjudication, nor filed any application for condonation of delay or remove the defect.
4. In absence of proper application for condonation of delay, delay in filing appeal is not condoned, resultantly, the appeal is dismissed as unadmitted. However, the assessee is given liberty to file appropriate miscellaneous application by showing sufficient cause either for non-filing of application of condonation of delay or in non-attendance of hearing before the Tribunal.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order announced on 25th January, 2022in open court at the time of hearing in virtual court.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
