VIJAY SHAMBHULING POPADE,LATUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

ITA 1198/PUN/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Vijay Shambhuling Popade against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which was framed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing (96 days) without any sufficient cause or condonation application from the assessee. The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated failure to appear at scheduled hearings and his lack of engagement in the legal process, which contributed to the decision to dismiss the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773921 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK OJHA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Right to appeal
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1198/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2014-2015) Vijay Shambhuling Popade, Popade Niwas, Pathak Galli, Latur, Maharashtra. PAN : BKPPP 0696 D vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Shashank Ojha, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 29/11/2024 framed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 96 days in filing of this appeal. The defect has also been communicated to the assessee. Even otherwise, at the time of filing of the appeal, if there is any delay, then the assessee is required to file an application for condonation of delay along with reasons Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.1198/PUN./2025 (Vijay Shambhuling Popade) which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. As per section 253(3), appeal before this Tribunal can be filed within two months from the end of the month in which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. In the present appeal, the impugned order is dated 29/11/2024 and the appeal has been filed before this Tribunal on 07/05/2025. In absence of any specific evidence filed by the assessee, it is presumed that the impugned order has been communicated to the assessee on 29/11/2024. As per section 253(3) of the Act, the assessee was required to file appeal before this Tribunal latest by 31/01/2025, however, the appeal has been filed on 07/05/2025. So, there is a delay of 96 days. We also note that this appeal was fixed for hearing in the past on 11/06/2025 and 22/07/2025, but there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Even on the given date of hearing i.e. 20/08/2025, assessee failed to appear. 3. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant and that if the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfillment of those conditions that the right becomes vested and exercisable to the appellant. Undisputedly, the present appeal is barred by limitation. This Tribunal may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period referred to in section 253(3) of the Act if it is specified that there was Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.1198/PUN./2025 (Vijay Shambhuling Popade) sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that time and such powers have been provided u/s. 253(5) of the Act where time for filing an appeal has expired. In the instant case, the assessee has failed to file any condonation application stating any sufficient reason which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. It is also observed that the assessee even after having been served with valid notices of hearing, has failed to appear before the Ld.AO during the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and even in the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) against the levy of penalty of Rs. 9,26,979/-. These series of events indicates that assessee is not serious in prosecuting his appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as before this Tribunal. Under these given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appeal is time barred as per the provisions of section 253(3) of the Act, as no plausible and/or sufficient cause is established giving rise to this delay. We therefore dismiss the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 08th September, 2025 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.1198/PUN./2025 (Vijay Shambhuling Popade) vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "