2020 (2) TMI 1349 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 317 days - submissions of assessee that CIT(A) has passed an exparte order and against that order the assessee filed a petition for restoration of the appeal and CIT(A) has not passed any order of restoration and since the assessee was waiting for the order of restoration and hence the assessee was unable to file the appeal before the Tribunal in time - HELD THAT - Admittedly the assessee has not filed any material showing that the assessee has filed restoration petition before the ld. CIT(A) for recalling the exparte order passed by him. When the Bench asked the ld. Counsel about the restoration petition filed before the CIT(A) it was replied that they have no proof to show that the assessee had filed such petition to recall the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and he agreed that there is no specific provision under the Income Tax Act and moreover the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is appealable before the ITAT. No sufficient reason to condone the delay of 317 days and moreover we do not find any merits in the grounds of both the appeals filed by the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal; Condonation of delay; Lack of material for restoration petition before CIT(A); Appealable orders before ITAT.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals filed by the assessee against a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2013-14. The appeals were delayed by 317 days, and the assessee sought condonation of the delay, stating that they were waiting for a restoration order from the CIT(A) before filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee's counsel argued that since no restoration order was passed by the CIT(A), the delay occurred. However, the Departmental Representative (DR) contended that there was no provision for such a petition before the CIT(A) to recall an order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence of filing a restoration petition before the CIT(A) and acknowledged that there is no specific provision in the Income Tax Act for such a petition. The Tribunal found no sufficient reason to condone the delay and dismissed both appeals due to lack of merit.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of material showing the filing of a restoration petition before the CIT(A) and the lack of provision in the Income Tax Act for such a petition. The assessee's argument that they were waiting for a restoration order was not substantiated with evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the order passed by the CIT(A) was appealable before the ITAT, and the delay of 317 days could not be condoned without proper justification. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee due to the delay in filing, which was not adequately justified. The lack of evidence regarding the filing of a restoration petition before the CIT(A) and the absence of a provision in the Income Tax Act for such a petition led to the dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of timely filing and substantiating reasons for seeking condonation of delay in tax matters, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements and legal provisions.