HANUMANTA SURAPRA KARNALI,NAVSARI V. ITO, WARD-2, NAVSARI

ITA 856/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Hanumanta Surapra Karnali, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 4, Surat, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The appeals were filed in response to an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, which resulted in a significant addition to the assessee's income due to a reduction in the claimed depreciation on plant and machinery. The primary issue in the appeals was the inordinate delay in filing, which the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide a specific and convincing reason for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without consideration of the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472218 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officers, Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., Anshul Agarwal vs. Noida, Mewa Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Harayana, State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors, D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Karala & Anr., Sri Srivarama Krishnaiah Gumpena vs. ITO, Shri Muniyappa Srinivasa Gowda vs. ITO, AVA Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Amarabhai Ramjibhai Patel vs. ITO, Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors, P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr., Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: UDAY P NANAVATI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Depreciation; Period of limitation
• Section: 250; 154; 143(1); 13

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत Æयायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (िनधाªरण वषª /Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hanumanta Surapra Karnali J-218, Pahar Falia, Bhamanvel, Tal: Chikhli, Dist.Navsari – 396 402 बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari -396 445 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AOIPK 2214 A (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Uday P Nanavati, CA राजˢ की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 13/08/2024 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 11/12/2024 उद ्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 26/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These two appeals by the assessee emanate from the separate order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act [in short, ‘the Act’] of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 4, Surat [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’], both dated 27.06.2024 for the assessment years (AY) 2017-18 and 2018-19. In both appeals, the facts are common and grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are similar except variance of amounts. Hence, with the consent of the parties, both the appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by this consolidated order for sake of convenience and brevity. Grounds of appeal 2 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali raised by the assessee in ITA No. 856/SRT/2024 for AY 2017-18, treated as “lead” case, are as follow: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of assessee regarding delay in presenting appeal. 2. All the grounds of appeal prayed before CIT(A) remains unchanged as the Learned CIT(A) has rejected the appeal without going into any merits of the appeal. 3. It is therefore prayed that the rectification application filed by the assessee should be allowed and claim of assessee regarding depreciation on plant & machinery which was not allowed by mistake while processing ITR should be allowed. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.10,63,270/- on 31.10.2012. Thereafter, an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was received by the assessee from CPC with demand of Rs.8,56,922/-, due to an error mainly in the claim of depreciation on block of plant and machinery. The assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.25,10,288/- in original return filed by but CPC, while processing ITR, has allowed depreciation of Rs.1,86,406/- resulting into addition of income to the tune of Rs.23,14,882/-. In response to the above intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 04.10.2018, assessee filed rectification u/s 154 of the Act on 17.03.2023. Thereafter, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 23.03.2023. The CPC rejected said rectification petition vide order dated 03.08.2023. Assessee filed further rectification request on 10.10.2023. Thereafter, the CIT(A) passed the order on 27.06.2024. Aggrieved, assessee 3 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali filed appeal before the Tribunal on 12.08.2024. It is, therefore, clear that the appeal of the assessee against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was filed late by 4 years 4 months and 19 days. In the appellate proceedings, CIT(A) observed that assessee was given opportunity to explain and substantiate the inordinate delay in filing his appeal. He stated that submission dated 18.12.2023 regarding delay in filing appeal is general in nature and assessee has relied on certain judgments but he has not given any specific reasons for such inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Unless the assessee submits some plausible, convincing and specific reasons and they are substantiated with necessary facts and adequate documentary evidences, such inordinate delay of 4 years in filing appeal cannot be condoned. He observed that the reliance on the decisions by the assessee is of no help given the circumstances noted above. There is no liberty with assessee to file appeal after such inordinate delay with some general grounds. There should be sufficient cause for admitting appeal after expiration of the period of 30 days u/s 249(3) of the Act. He said that there is a distinction between delay and inordinate delay. He observed that when the mandatory provisions are not complied with and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on general grounds alone. The Courts and Appellate Authorities are not walk-in-place where the appellant can approach whenever they want. The CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officers, AIR (2014) SC 746, Ram Lal 4 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) SC 361; Anshul Agarwal vs. Noida (2011), 14 SCC 578, Mewa Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Harayana, AIR 1987 SC 13, State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO & Ors , AIR 2005 SC 2191 and D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Karala & Anr. AIR 2007 SC 2624. Thereafter, the CIT(A) has referred to various decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and observed that appellant must demonstrate that there was sufficient cause which obstructed his action to file appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. He stated that the delay was directly the result of deliberate inaction by the appellant. Hence, the appeal was dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book and admitted that the assessee could not file appeal before the CIT(A) on time. He submitted that delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. The Ld. AR prayed that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, Ld. AR contended that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case on merit before the CIT(A). He relied on the decisions: (i) Sri Srivarama Krishnaiah Gumpena vs. ITO in ITA No.1913/Bang/2024 dated 29.10.204 (ii) Shri Muniyappa Srinivasa Gowda vs. ITO in ITA No.1852/Bang/2024 dated 30.10.2024 (iii) Ava Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.3401/Del/2024 dated 07.11.2024 and (iv) Amarabhai Ramjibhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA 234/Ahd/2024 dated 19.09.2024. 5 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali 5. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) submitted that the CPC made the adjustment as per the ITR filed by the assessee. There was no mistake apparent on the face of the record. He submitted that the assessee has failed to establish that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time. There was inordinate delay of 4 years and 4 months in filing the appeal. The assessee was negligent in filing appeal before the CIT(A). He was also negligent in properly representing his case before the CIT(A). He submitted that the CIT(A) has relied on various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of condonation of delay and came to a right conclusion that the delay could not be condoned. Hence, appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by both parties. It is seen from Form-35 that assessee had accepted delay in filing appeal but did not give reasons for condonation of delay. He stated that the letter would be submitted during appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) in his appellate order had extracted the submission of assessee at para-5 (page-3 to 13). In the reasons given before CIT(A), assessee has stated that the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 04.10.2018 was received on e-mail of assessee’s accountant. It was submitted that a rectification application filed by assessee with CPC on 10.10.2023 is still pending. The assessee relied on decisions of different Benches of ITAT and Hon’ble High Courts. The CIT(A) has considered the submission but did not find 6 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali any merit on the said submission. Therefore, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case. The finding of the CIT(A) has already been discussed at para-3 of this order and hence not repeated. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue stated that the reasons given by the assessee would not constitute \"sufficient cause\" within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. 6.1 After considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and the objection by the Ld. Sr-DR, we find that the primary reason given by the assessee for the delay is that there was no deliberate and intentional delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has simply relied on some decisions without elaborating as to how the facts of those cases are similar to the facts of the present case. Such a simple and general reason given by the applicant would not constitute \"sufficient cause\" for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. It is clear from the reasons reproduced above that he was negligent, inactive and not diligent in pursuing the issue relating to filing of appeal within specified time after receiving the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. In Form-35 itself it is mentioned that the order was received on 04.10.2018 but appeal was filed on 23.03.2023, after delay of more than 4 years and 4 months. 6.2 At this juncture, it would be relevant to discuss the decisions relied upon by AR of the assessee. He has relied on the decision in case of Shri Muniyappa Srinivasa Gowda (supra). In that case, there was delay of 32 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. It is stated that CIT(A) has not taken the notice of condonation 7 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali of application and affidavit of CA. Hence, delay was condoned. In case of Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah Gumpena (supra), delay was condoned based on decision in case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596). However, it was clarified by the ITAT at para-12 that the decision is based on peculiar facts of the case and it cannot be applied as precedent in any other case. In case of AVA Resources Pvt. Ltd. (supra) there was delay of 35 days but the reasons given by the assessee was accepted as sufficient reason for condonation of delay. In case of Amarbhai Ramjibhai Patel (supra) the Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) has been properly explained because assessee was an agriculturist and he was not knowing intricacies of law. The facts in the present case are distinguishable. The appellant has not given any reason to justify delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). He has only relied on certain decisions discussed above without elaborating as to how the facts of the cases relied upon are similar to the facts of the assessee. Hence, they would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 6.3 Let us now discuss about some decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on issue of condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors (Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 has set aside the order of Hon’ble High Court which had condoned the delay of 1011 days. The Hon'ble High Court observed that there was no willful negligence nor it suffered from want of diligence. While considering the issue against this order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to 8 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali the cases in (I) Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762, (II) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (Hi) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iv) Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81. The respondent had argued in above case that if the delay is condoned, the appeal will be considered and decided on merit and therefore no prejudice would be caused to the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept such a view. It has reproduced the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in \"Para 6\" of the said decision. In the decision, the Hon'ble High Court stated that \"if delay is condoned though enormous, what happens at best is to give an opportunity to the parties to canvass their respective case. Since, this question being of procedure, the attempt of the court should be to encourage a healthy discussion on merits than rejecting at threshold.\" It also held that there was no willful negligence or want of due diligence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the reasons of the Hon'ble High Court. It was of the opinion that it was a case of gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the respondent. There was no sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter relied on its own earlier decisions cited supra where the conduct of the parties in preferring appeals beyond the time prescribed was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In various cases, it has been observed that in absence 9 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali of reasonable and satisfactory cause or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. 6.4 In the case of P. K. Ramachandran (supra) it was observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statue so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 6.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its decision in case of Basawaraj (supra) wherein it was observed and held by the Court that discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It also observed that the expression \"sufficient cause\" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that in case a party acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. 6.6 The Hon'ble Court also referred to the decision in the case of Pundik Jalam Patil (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and \"do not slumber over their rights.\" 6.7 Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these cases, it was held that the Hon'ble High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by 10 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali respondent. The order of Hon'ble High Court was found to be unsustainable, both on law as well as on facts. 7. We also find that in the following decisions namely (i) Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762, (it) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (iii) Pundik Jalam vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iv) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (v) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04,2024, it was held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 7.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj (supra) held that it is a settled legal position that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The Hon'ble Court summarized the law on the subject issue by stating that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation of time, the applicant has to explain as to what was the \"sufficient cause\", which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within the limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. 11 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali 7.2 We also find that in a recent decision pronounced on 28.04.2024, in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and discussed various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely (i) Bhag Mat (Alias) Ram Bux & Ors vs. Munshi (Dead) by LRs & Ors (2007) 11 SCC 285 (SC), (ii) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 (SC), (iii) Ramlalf Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (supra), (iv) Maqbul Ahmad and Ors vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, AIR 1935 PC 85 (SC), (v) Brijesh Kumar and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50, (vi) Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 363, (vii) State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1927 and (viii) Basawaraj and Ors (supra) and held as under: \"7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim \"interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium\" i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals.\" 7.3 It has also discussed the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and held that the phrases \"liberal approach\", \"justice-oriented approach\" and \"cause of advancement of substantial justice\" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation. For ready reference and clarity, the same is reproduced hereunder: 12 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali \"16. ................In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnaci and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.2. this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice- (1987) 2 SCC 107 = AIR 1987 SC 1353 oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.\" 7.4 After discussion on various cases in its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 26 has summed up the law laid down by it as under: \"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation_Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.\" 13 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali 7.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court accordingly refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7.6 The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee has filed the appeal after a delay of around 1600 days. The appellant has relied on various decisions of ITAT and Hon’ble High Court but has not spelt out the exact reasons for the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). It would not constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act. It is crystal clear from the facts narrated earlier that after receiving the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the appellant has remained inactive and was grossly negligent. There was no due diligence on the part of the assessee. Such casual and lackadaisical approach against the intimation u/s 143(1) and consequential filing of appeal before CIT(A) would not constitute \"sufficient cause\" within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. In view of the above facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the decision of CIT(A) in refusing to condone the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The ground is accordingly dismissed. 8. Since delay has not been condoned, it is academic in nature to discuss the merits of the case and hence, the other grounds are not adjudicated. 9. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA No.857/SRT/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) 10. The facts of appeal in ITA No.857/Srt/2024 for AY 2018-19 is similar to the facts of the case in ITA No.856/Srt/2024 for A 2017-18. In this appeal, also the CIT(A) did not condone the delay of almost 4 years in filing the appeal and 14 ITA Nos.856 & 857/SRT/2024 (AYs 17-18 & 18-19) Hanumanta S Karnali accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Here also appeal was against intimation u/s 143(1) passed on 21.05.2019 by CPC. The reasons for condonation of delay as given by the assessee before the CIT(A) was also similar. Therefore, following the reasons given therein in ITA No.856/Srt/2024 for AY 2017-18, we dismiss the ground of appeal. Since denial of condonation of delay is affirmed, the other grounds are academic in nature. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 11. In combined result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Registry is directed to place one copy of this order in both the appeals folder / case file(s). Order pronounced on 26/12/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) Æयाियक सदÖय/ Judicial Member लेखा सदÖय/ Accountant Member Ǒदनांक/ Date: 26/12/2024 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ (अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT  गाडª फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेश से, // True Copy // सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, सूरत "