ITAT refuses to Condone Delay of 789 Days due to Negligent, Casual, and Non-Compliant Behaviour of Assessee [Read Order]

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad bench in view of the negligent, casual and non-compliant behaviour of the assessee, has refused to condone a delay of 789 days.

The assessee, Mr. Ishwarsingh Ramchandra Jangid, is an individual who is engaged in the transportation business. As per the AIR information received by the Assessing Officer, cash deposits of Rs.24,79,430/- were found to be made by the assessee in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai during the year under consideration. Since no return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer and a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued by him to the assessee on 29.03.2017 after recording the reasons and obtaining approval from the higher authority. There was, however, no response on the part of the assessee to the said notice issued by the Assessing Officer as well as to the subsequent notices issued by him under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was left with no alternative but to complete the assessment ex-parte to the best of his judgment on the basis of material available on record.

A division bench of Shri P.M. Jagtap (Vice-President) and Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) observed that there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings as well as to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings resulting into passing of exparte orders by them.

Refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal held that “It is not doubt true that the appellate authorities are vested with discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal taking into consideration the reasons advanced by the appellant for such delay if the same constitute a sufficient cause. In the present case, the assessee has not only failed to establish such sufficient cause on evidence for the delay on his part in filing the appeal belatedly before the learned CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal, but even his approach and attitude during the course of assessment proceedings as well as during the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) as well as Tribunal have been found to be negligent, casual and noncompliant. We, therefore, refuse to condone the inordinate delay of 789 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and dismiss the said appeal at the threshold by treating the same as barred by limitation.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.