Nitin Sehgal Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
ITAT Amritsar held that in absence of cogent and satisfactory explanation, delay of 781 days in filing of an appeal cannot be condoned. Accordingly, condonation of delay not granted.
Facts- The matter involved here is that the assessee in spite of the fact that the appellant has been given many opportunities of being heard by fixing hearing on 01.09.2022, 17.11.2022, 16.02.2023, 22.03.2023 and 26.04.2023 except Sh. Nitin Sehgal, the appellant itself had appeared only once on 16.02.20223 and short adjournment with a request to file written submission. However, on subsequent dates, he neither appeared nor any Authorized Representative (AR) did appear on behalf of the appellant. It was noticed that there was a delay of 781 days in filing the appeal. Under the circumstances, after hearing the Ld. DR, it was decided to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay, considering the material available on record.
Conclusion- In the instant case, there was No cogent and satisfactory explanation has been furnished by either the appellant or the learned counsel for the appellant assessee even before this Tribunal for inordinately long delay of 781 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal in spite of being given five opportunities of being heard. The explanation furnished by the assessee in its application for condonation of delay, as noticed in the earlier part of the order does not satisfy the test of sufficient ground as contemplated under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is rejected and the appeal would be liable to be dismissed on ground of delay.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar dated 24.09.2019 in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the assessment wrongly framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravelly erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 6,50,000/-in respect of cash seized from the assessee.
3.1 That while sustaining the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the source of amounts and the cash flow chart filed during the assessment proceedings.
4. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.”
3. None appeared for the assessee in spite of the fact that the appellant has been given many opportunities of being heard by fixing hearing on 01.09.2022, 17.11.2022, 16.02.2023, 22.03.2023 and 26.04.2023 except Sh. Nitin Sehgal, the appellant itself had appeared only once on 16.02.20223 and short adjournment with a request to file written submission. However, on subsequent dates, he neither appeared nor any Authorized Representative (AR) did appear on behalf of the appellant. It was noticed that there was a delay of 781 days in filing the appeal. Under the circumstances, after hearing the Ld. DR, it was decided to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay, considering the material available on record.
4. There was a delay of 781 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the assesse for the reasons mentioned in its application dated: 01/2022 for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under:
