The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Kolkata Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, refused to condone the delay of 927 days in the filing of appeal, on the ground of non- compliance of notice and non- submission of details.
The aforesaid observation was made by the Kolkata ITAT, when an appeal was preferred before it by the assessee Intent Infra projects Pvt. Limited, as against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, dated 25.04.2019 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.
The primary ground of the assessee’s appeal being as to whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ,has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.54,50,86,200/- which was added by the Assessing Officer, with the aid of Section 68 on account of unexplained cash credit, it was observed by the Kolkata ITAT that in response to the notice of hearing, no one had come present on behalf of the assessee, and that despite the Tribunal having issued a number of notices, four of them had returned back with the postal remark “no such Company is available on the given address”.
With one Shri Bisweswar Ghosh being filing the adjournment application on behalf of the assessee , but withno appearance before the ITAT, the Kolkata ITAT observed:
“No one has come present today. A perusal of the impugned order would suggest that there was no compliance at the end of the assessee either before the ld. Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It has filed its return of income on 21.03.2013 declaring totalincome at NIL. Its case was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee has received huge share capital and accordingly he treated such a credit entry as bogus.”
With Shri G. Hukugha Sema, the CIT, having appeared on behalf of the Revenue, discussing the issue a little bit in detail, concurred with the Assessing Officer, the ITAT Panel consisting of Rajesh Kumar, the Accountant Member, along with Rajpal Yadav, the Vice-President (KZ), further noted:
“The appeal before the Tribunal is time-barred by 927 days. The assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay as contemplated in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Income Tax Act, but an affidavit deposed by one Shri Sumanta Chowdhury has been filed.”
“We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfiedthat there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the Id.Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963.”
“Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Honble High Court as well as before the Honble Supreme Court, then, Honble Courts were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally”,referring to the decisions of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji &Others, as well as N. Balakrisknan Vs. M. Krishnamurtky”, the ITAT Panel further added.
Thus, dismissing the assessee’s appeal the Kolkata ITAT held:
“The explanation available in this affidavit is totally vague and not specific. This explanation is to be appreciated in the light of the conduct of the assessee before the Revenue Authorities below, where the assessee neither comply a single notice nor submitted any details. Therefore, we do not deem it fit to condone the delay in filing this appeal. This appeal is dismissed being time-barred.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
