Shri Chetankumar Pragjibhai Rabadiya, Morbi V. ITO WARD 1, MORBI

ITA 12/RJT/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Chetankumar Pragjibhai Rabadiya against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, which confirmed an earlier order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed with a substantial delay of 707 days, attributed to the assessee's financial difficulties and absconding from Morbi, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be vague and unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 133691 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट 瀈यायपीठ 瀈यायपीठ瀈यायपीठ 瀈यायपीठ, , , , राजकोट IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.12/RJT/2022 Assessment Year :2011-12 Shri Chetankumar Pragjibhai Rabadiya 115-Umiya Plot Vistar A/P : S. Sanala, Morbi. PAN : ALUPR 8308 P Vs. ITO, Ward-1 Morbi. अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ /(Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 29.11.2019 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At the time of hearing none came present on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice nor any application seeking adjournment was filed before us. Even in the past when the appeal was listed for hearing on four occasions, twice an application seeking adjournment was filed on behalf of the assessee by his ITA No.12/RJT/2022 2 alleged legal representatives though there is no power of attorney on record, granted by the assessee in favour of any authorized person to represent his case. On the other occasions none came present for the assessee. The assessee it appears is not interested in pursuing his appeal and therefore the matter was proceeded to be adjudicated exparte. 3. The Registry, we have noted, has notified that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 707 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of the delay with an affidavit. The affidavit was not filed in original but only a photocopy was filed. Be that so, the contents of the application read as under: “I, Chetan Kumar PragjibhaiRabadiya, 115-Umiya Plot Vistar, Sanala, Morbi, PAN ALURP 8308 P do hereby solemnly declare and affirms as under: 1. That order u/s. 250 was passed by Id. CIT (Appeal), Rajkot on 29.11.2019, which was served on me 23.12.2019 confirming order u/s. 143(3) passed by Id. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi. 2. That said order was served on me on 23.12.2019 3. That appeal against said order is required to be filed before hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on or before 21.02.2020, however said appeal is not filed and got delayed by 703 days. 4. The said delay is occurred due to fact that I have huge financial dues on me and got absconded from Morbi and also due to Covid-19 my business got shut down. Since there was immense pressure from lender, I went out of Morbi. When my financial position got improved and I have settled with lenders, I come back. 5. In the meantime the appeal to be filed before hon. ITAT, Rajkot Bench got delayed 6. Hence, delay caused in filing appeal before hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not intentional or with any malafide intent but due to my adverse financial circumstances.” 4. The learned DR, objected to the plea for condonation of delay for the aforestated reasons, pointing out that there was no plausible reason for the condonation of delay in this case, and that the non ITA No.12/RJT/2022 3 compliant and uncooperative attitude of the assessee before us deserved no leniency in the matter of condonation of delay. 5. A perusal of the above application shows that the reasons narrated therein for the delay are vague, general and totally unsubstantiated. The assessee had cited compelling adverse situation in his business for the delay, but there is no timeline mentioned explaining the period of delay nor any evidence substantiating this plea of adverse business circumstances prevailing. The huge delay in the present case of 707 days can only be condoned if the assessee is able to demonstrate that it was prevented by sufficient cause from prosecuting his case. Since the assessee has failed to make out a case that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, and no material proof has been placed before us to consider the cause of the impugned delay in filing the appeal, the application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, rejected. As a consequence, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-admitted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. Order pronounced in the Court on 22 nd March, 2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 22/03/2023 vk*