RAJDHANI FLORA & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-21(1), DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the significant delay in filing the appeal, as the assessee failed to provide a proper reasonable cause and supporting documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of approximately 9 years, attributing it to financial crisis. The CIT(A) found the submissions cryptic and unsupported by documentary evidence, despite opportunities given.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to be heard and in confirming the addition without sufficient opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA
ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 28.02.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:-
“1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer/ITO/CIT(APPEAL) is bad Both in the eye of law and on the facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without providing proper opportunity of being heard.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition without sufficient opportunity to explain its reasons of delay in filing appeal before him.”
In the case, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the appeal was filed by almost delay of 9 years. The reasonable cause attributed was financial crisis.
However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the submissions of the assessee is very cryptic in nature. He has also noted that it is not supported by the documentary evidence. He further noted that the assessee was given opportunity to file written submissions and necessary documents. But the assessee failed to file any required documents. In these facts, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay for 9 years in filing the appeal and dismissed appeal as not admitted.
Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Before me also, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that an opportunity may be granted before the authorities below and he submitted that reasonable cause for delay before the Ld. CIT(A) was financial crisis. On the facts and circumstances of the case and after careful consideration, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken correct view in not condoning the delay in this case in absence of proper reasonable cause and documents to that effect. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2023.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
