AMIT TAK,JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1), JAIPUR

ITA 570/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Amit Tak, the appellant, who challenged an order from the Learned CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed against an assessment order that computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,91,63,005, including various additions such as salary, rent, interest, royalty payment, and depreciation. The primary issue before the tribunal was the condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal. The appellant argued that the delay was due to multiple civil and criminal proceedings and financial stringencies. However, the tribunal found the supporting documents insufficient and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793578 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV AWASTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT MUNDHRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 570/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 Amit Tak H.No. 41, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort, Vidhyakpuri, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AJEPT0956F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Mundhra, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :25/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER . Present appeal came to be presented on 10.04.2025, challenging order dated 12.09.2023, passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2017-18, whereby appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, as regards the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 whereby total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 1,91,63,005/-, after Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 570/JPR/2025 Amit Tak , Jaipur. making three additions on account of salary, rent, interest, royalty payment and deprecation. 2. The Registry observed that the appeal came to be filed on 497 days i.e. much after the prescribed period of limitation, and accordingly, raised a deficiency note. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonaton of delay. With the application, the applicant has filed his own affidavit. 3. Firstly, arguments have been advanced only on the point of condonation of delay. Heard. File perused. 4. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the assessee could not file appeal before this Appellate Tribunal within prescribed period of limitation due to multiple Civil and Criminal Proceedings involving the applicant and his family members, and also because of the financial stringencies due to prolonged litigation and business losses. Accordingly, Ld. AR has submitted that delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 570/JPR/2025 Amit Tak , Jaipur. 5. It may be mentioned here that the affidavit annexed to the application, seeking condnation of delay is an unattested affidavit. Attention of Ld. AR for the appellant has been drawn to the said fact, but, there is no response as to why no attested affidavit has been furnished in support of the application. The fact remains that no reliance can be placed on the unattested affidavit filed by way of evidence, in support of the application. 6. As regards ground of multiple Civil and Criminal Proceedings involving the applicant and his family members, Ld. AR for the applicant has drawn our attention to the only page i.e. first page of the complaint purported to be one u/s 138 r.w.s. 142 Negotiable Instruments Act From the only first page of complaint, without any better particulars, it cannot be said as to during which period any such proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, were instituted or remained pending against the applicant, and five others, arrayed therein as respondents, and therefore, this incomplete document is of no assistance to the applicant so far as condonation of delay is concerned. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 570/JPR/2025 Amit Tak , Jaipur. 7. The other document to which our attention has been drown by Ld. AR for the applicant is copy of SB Cr. Mic. Petition No. 6456/2017 purported to have been presented by the applicant /petitioner u/s 482 Cr. P.C., in case FIR No. 256/2017, dated 12.10.2017, registered at police Station Vidhyakpuri, Jaipur, u/s 420, 406 and 120B IPC . It may be mentioned here that only first page of SB Cr. Misc. Petition has been made part of the record. Copy of the entire petition has not been made available, so as to find out as to during which period said petition remained pending before our own Hon’ble High Court , even though instituted in the year 2017. It may be mentioned here that the appeal was filed before Learned CIT(A) on 17.01.2020, and the same was disposed of vide impugned order dated 12.09.2023. Therefore, for want of complete document, the only page is also of no assistance to the applicant on the point of condonation of delay. 8. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that any Multiple Civil and Criminal proceedings were going on against the applicant and his other family members during relevant period I.e. from the date of institution Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 570/JPR/2025 Amit Tak , Jaipur. of appeal i.e. on 17.01.2020 before Learned CIT(A), and disposal thereof on 12.09.2023. 9. Even otherwise, in the course of argument, Ld. AR for the applicant has not been able to explain as to why the applicant did not pursue the appeal before Learned CIT(A), and rather, claims to have preferred pursuing litigation before Civil/Criminal Courts. 10. As regards the financial stringency , Ld. AR for the applicant has not been above to point out as to how the applicant suffered in his business and as to how any such loss prevented him from filing of this appeal before Appellate Tribunal, particularly when admittedly, the impugned order was passed by Learned CIT(A) on 12.09.2023 and communicated on the same date. Result 11. In the view of the above discussion, we find that the applicant/assessee has failed to establish any sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal i.e. after a delay of 497 days. The application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 570/JPR/2025 Amit Tak , Jaipur. 12. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, this appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Amit Tak, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 570/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "