Case Law Details
GVPR Engineers Ltd Vs DCIT (Telangana High Court)
It is seen that the appeal which was filed in the year 2016 was returned with office objections. It is stated that the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the appeal papers were resubmitted. Subsequently, when appellant enquired, it was found that the appeal which was returned with objections was not resubmitted by the counsel.
We are unable to accept such untenable contentions made on behalf of the appellant. Merely placing the blame on the counsel cannot justify the inordinate delay of 1546 days. Even the particulars have not been furnished as to when the appeal was filed, when it was returned, the name of the counsel, whether the appellant had thereafter met the counsel etc. On the basis of such bald statements, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1546 days. No sufficient cause has been shown.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Ms. Prabhavathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. I. A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed to condone the delay of 1546 days in filing the related appeal.
3. Be it stated that the related appeal has been filed by the appellant (assessee) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 29.02.2016 (received on 09.03.2016) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “B”, Hyderabad (Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.740/Hyd/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11.
4. The delay of 1546 days has been explained in the following manner:
“Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned ITAT, the petitioner herein had filed an appeal challenging the said order in the year 2016 and the same was returned with some objections having ITTASR No.1481 of 2016. A copy of the online SR details showed in the High Court website is enclosed herewith. It is submitted that the petitioner was under bonafide belief that the said appeal papers were resubmitted and the appeal was numbered and pending for hearing. The petitioner enquired about the same when a similar order is passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “A” Bench in I.T.A.No.1617/Hyd/2017 for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 23-11-2021 in the petitioner’s own case. Then the petitioner became aware of the fact that the appeal has been returned with certain objections and the same had never been resubmitted by the counsel. Hence, the delay.”
5. Thus, it is seen that the appeal which was filed in the year 2016 was returned with office objections. It is stated that the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the appeal papers were resubmitted. Subsequently, when appellant enquired, it was found that the appeal which was returned with objections was not resubmitted by the counsel.
6. We are unable to accept such untenable contentions made on behalf of the appellant. Merely placing the blame on the counsel cannot justify the inordinate delay of 1546 days. Even the particulars have not been furnished as to when the appeal was filed, when it was returned, the name of the counsel, whether the appellant had thereafter met the counsel etc. On the basis of such bald statements, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1546 days. No sufficient cause has been shown.
7. As a matter of fact, once the appeal was filed before this Court which was returned by the Registry with office objections and thereafter not re-filed, it is not open for the appellant to file a fresh appeal. Therefore, even the related appeal would not be maintainable. If that be so, question of condoning the delay would not arise.
8. That being the position, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is dismissed.
9. Consequently, the related appeal is also dismissed.
Author Bio
