PAWAN KUMAR YADAV,BARAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD, BARAN

ITA 714/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pawan Kumar Yadav against an order passed by the Learned CIT(A), which dismissed the assessee's challenge to a rectification order. The appeal was filed significantly late, and despite multiple adjournments, the appellant failed to appear or provide a condonation of delay application. The tribunal, noting the absence of any justification for the delay and the lack of necessary applications, dismissed the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792960 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2025
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-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. 714/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 Pawan Kumar Yadav Rajkiya Madhyamik School Ke Pas Gram Melkheri, Post Melkhery, Baran, Dist. Baran. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Baran. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AHWPY0688H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :23/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Present appeal came to be presented on 30.04.2025, while challenging order dated 18.03.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2017-18 whereby the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging rectification order dated 21.01.2020, came to be dismissed. The Registry raised a deficiency note that the appeal came to be filed 334 days after the prescribed period of limitation. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 714/JPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Yadav, Baran. The appeal is not accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. 2. It may be mentioned here that in view of the deficiency note raised by the Registry, the assessee-appellant was required to file an application seeking condonation of delay. In column 11 of Form 36, the assessee admitted the factum of delay in filing of the appeal, and further, pleaded that application seeking condonation of delay was attached to the memorandum of appeal. Surprisingly, no such application seeking condonation of delay is on record or has been subsequently filed. 3. As noticed above, the appeal came to be presented on 30.04.2025. When the matter was taken up on 12.08.2025, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Notwithstanding absence on behalf of the assessee, in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned to 27.08.2025. 4. However, even on 27.08.2025, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but the appeal was adjourned for today. Even today, despite wait, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. Since the appeal has been filed 334 days after prescribed period of limitation and none has appeared before this Appellate Tribunal on 3 dates, or cared to file any application seeking condonation of delay, we hold that Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 714/JPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Yadav, Baran. the assessee has failed to put forth any sufficient cause for the delay in filing of this appeal, what to say of establishing any sufficient casue for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Result 6. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby 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 24/09/2025. 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:- 24/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Pawan Kumar Yadav, Baran. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward, Baran. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 714/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "