The Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the delay in filing of the appeal by 930 days by the assessee cannot be condoned and the misplacement of document is not a sufficient explanation.
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of aqua feed and filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.34,84,410/- under the normal provisions and Rs.33,73,901/- under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 14.12.2017 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.91,78,984/- wherein he made addition of Rs.22,52,673/- on a/c of gold scheme and Rs.34,52, 901/- on a/c of disallowance of foreign & domestic tour expenses.
Since the assessee did not appear before the commissioner of Income Tax (CIT (A)), the commissioner of Income Tax (CIT (A)) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in the ex-parte order passed by him.
Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before tribunal by delaying of 930 days and filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons for such delay. The counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to Form 35 and submitted that in Column “Whether notices/ communication may be sent on email” the assessee has mentioned “No”.
He accordingly submitted that since the order of the commissioner of Income Tax (CIT (A)) was not received by the assessee, therefore, there was a delay in filing of this appeal.
The counsel for the department referred to the reply given by the commissioner of Income Tax (CIT (A)) regarding the non-service of appeal order to the assessee. The order was sent to the address given by the assessee by speed post which was returned unserved by the postal authorities with the remarks “addressee left”. The assessee has not taken any steps to intimate the change of address.
The submissions of assessee for condonation application are that the email data given in the PAN data was discontinued as the assessee could not pay the charges. The e-mail address given in Form No.35 is also not available since the service provider discontinued the service on a/c of nonpayment and the person whose email-id was given in Form 35 left the company due to some dispute.
Therefore, the notices sent by the commissioner of Income Tax (CIT (A)) were not received for which the assessee could not represent before the commissioner of income tax (CIT (A)). It is also his submission in the delay condonation application that only when the Accountant checked the I.T Portal, he found the order of the CIT (A) in the Website for which the appeal is being filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 930 days.
The reasons given in the condonation application for the delay are not sufficient for condonation of such a huge delay of 930 days. We therefore, hold that the delay in filing of the appeal by 930 days by the assessee cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation.
The Coram comprising the judicial member laliet kumar and the account member R.K. Panda observed that “the reasons given in the condonation application for the delay are not sufficient for condonation of such a huge delay of 930 days. We therefore, hold that the delay in filing of the appeal by 930 days by the assessee cannot be condoned.” The appeal filed by the assessee dismissed.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
