9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1496 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay in filing of the appeal - HELD THAT - Assessee is a habitual defaulter as she has not filed the appeal in time either before the CIT(Appeals) or before the Tribunal. The appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was late by 564 days which was not duly explained. Having realized that she has filed the appeal late before the CIT(Appeals), she did not make any effort to file the appeal before the Tribunal in time. No fresh evidence is filed with regard to non-filing of appeal by the ld. Authorized Representative. If the Authorised Representative has not discharged his duties in time, it amounts to professional misconduct, for which the assessee ought to have lodged a complaint before the Competent Authority in order to justify his act. But, nothing was done. Therefore, the story propounded by the assessee cannot be believed. Since the assessee is a habitual defaulter, she deserves no concession by the authorities.We are therefore of the view that it is a fit case where the condonation of delay in filing of the appeal can be denied. - Appeal of assessee dismissed.
Issues: Late filing of appeal, Condonation of delay, Assessment of Total Income, Non-compliance with Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, Dismissal of appeal by lower authorities, Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C
Late Filing of Appeal: The appellant filed an appeal against the order of CIT(Appeals) after a significant delay of 310 days. The appellant sought condonation of delay, attributing the delay to the Authorized Representative's failure to prepare the appeal on time. However, no evidence was presented to support this claim. Both the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal noted the habitual delay in filing appeals by the appellant. The Tribunal found the appellant to be a habitual defaulter and emphasized that no effort was made to file the appeal in a timely manner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not justified, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Assessment of Total Income: The appellant challenged the assessment of Total Income made by the Assessing Officer, arguing that the particulars of income declared in the ITR-4 were not appropriately considered. The appellant contended that the AO failed to provide an opportunity to rectify the defects in the return as required under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant further claimed that the AO did not comply with the duty cast upon him under Section 139(9). However, the Tribunal did not address these specific grounds due to the dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds. Non-Compliance with Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act: The appellant alleged that the AO did not fulfill the obligations under Section 139(9) to allow the appellant to rectify the defects in the return. This non-compliance was cited as a reason for challenging the assessment of Total Income. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue as the appeal was dismissed based on the delay in filing. Dismissal of Appeal by Lower Authorities: Both the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal and ultimately dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The lower authorities emphasized the lack of justification for the delay and the appellant's habitual default in filing appeals in a timely manner. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The appellant contested the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, arguing that she was not liable for the amounts imposed. However, the Tribunal did not address this issue in detail as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the habitual delay in filing appeals by the appellant, ultimately leading to the denial of condonation of delay. The specific grounds raised by the appellant regarding the assessment of Total Income, non-compliance with Section 139(9), and the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C were not addressed substantively due to the procedural dismissal of the appeal.
|
