Facts of the Case

The assessee, Devang Ravishankar Pandya, proprietor of Shree Ram Petroleum, Mehsana, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

The appeal before the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 247 days. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any application for adjournment. Notices were issued, including by RPAD, but there was no representation on behalf of the assessee.

The Registry also pointed out multiple defects in the appeal, including non-filing of an affidavit for condonation of delay, incorrect and incomplete respondent details, incorrect mention of date of service of order, grounds of appeal not arising out of the impugned order, improper signing and verification of the memorandum of appeal under Section 140, and non-filling of mandatory personal information. Despite intimation, none of these defects were rectified.

Issues Involved

Whether an appeal could be entertained when it was filed with an inordinate delay without any application supported by affidavit for condonation, when mandatory procedural defects remained unrectified, and when the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal despite repeated opportunities.

Petitioner’s Arguments

No submissions were made on behalf of the assessee, as there was no appearance and no written submissions or condonation application were filed.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue was represented by the Senior Departmental Representative and relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

Court Order / Findings

The ITAT Ahmedabad observed that the appeal was time-barred by 247 days and that no application supported by an affidavit had been filed seeking condonation of delay. The Tribunal further noted that several serious procedural defects pointed out by the Registry remained unrectified, including defects relating to signing and verification of the appeal, incorrect cause title, and grounds of appeal not arising from the order appealed against.

The Tribunal also recorded that the assessee had not appeared on any of the hearing dates and had not shown any intent to prosecute the appeal. In view of the cumulative defects, lack of compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, and absence of sufficient cause for delay, the Tribunal held that there was no reason to entertain the appeal.

Important Clarification

The Tribunal clarified that compliance with procedural requirements, timely filing of appeal, proper verification, and rectification of defects are mandatory for maintainability of an appeal. Failure to prosecute the appeal and non-compliance with statutory and procedural requirements render the appeal liable to dismissal.

Final Outcome

The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as non-maintainable due to unexplained delay, non-rectification of defects, and lack of prosecution.

 

Source Link - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769061229_DEVANGRAVISHANKARPANDYAMEHSANAGUJARATVS.COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXAPPEALSDELHI.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.