SH. ANIL KUMAR,JIND, HARYANA V. ITO, WARD 1, JIND, ITO, JIND

ITA 711/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Anil Mor against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing (2929 days). The assessee's counsel attributed the delay to the assessee's neurological disorder, which allegedly affected his ability to file the appeal on time. However, the tribunal found the explanation insufficient, noting that the medical documents did not indicate that the assessee was completely unfit to handle his affairs during the delay period. The tribunal referenced a similar case from the Supreme Court to support its decision to dismiss the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107724 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others (Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dt.16.12.2021)
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी क ृणवȶ सहाय, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 711 /Chd/ 2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Anil Mor Village Ludana, Ludana(8), JInd, Ludana B.O. 126113, Haryana बनाम The ITO Ward-1, Jind ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALEPM9184G अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/03/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/03/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. During the course of hearing none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. 3. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. 4. We have perused the material available on the record and we find that there is delay of more than 2929 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The reasons given by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his Affidavit that the due to neurological disorder condition which affects the daily routine life of the assessee, assessee could not file the appeal within time and there is delay of 2929 days (8 yrs & 09 days). 4.1 In our considered opinion the medical documents, nowhere suggest that assessee was totally unfit during this period or in other words he was not able to perform his day to day duties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements have reiterated that the person who has seeking condonation of delay is required to explain, the day to day delay for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Furthermore, we are of the considered view, the appeal can be filed through his best friend or through his guardian, which is permissible in law. 2 4.2 In view of the above we do find any merit in the condonation application of delay and accordingly the same is dismissed. For the above said purposes we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others (Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dt.16.12.2021 relied upon by the ld. DR, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the condonation petition. The facts of this case are identical to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 6.2 had reproduced the facts of the case to the following effect : “6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously.” In our view, the facts of the present appeal are identical, rather are on worse footing, than that of the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra). Hence, the ld.CIT(A) was right in dismissing the condonation application and the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/03/2025 Sd/- Sd/- क ृणवȶ सहाय लिलत क ुमार (KRINWANT SAHAY) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "