Appeal dismissed due to 554-day delay without sufficient cause. Notice service issue not addressed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to an inordinate delay of 554 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, as no separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the Tribunal highlighting that the issue of the service of notice under section 143(2) was not addressed due to the dismissal based on the delay in filing the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Service of notice under section 143(2) within the limitation period.
2. Delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
3. Service of demand notice and assessment order.
4. Reasonable opportunity and condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Service of Notice under Section 143(2) Within the Limitation Period:
The assessee contended that no notice under section 143(2) was served within the limitation period, and no proof was brought on record, rendering all subsequent proceedings liable to be annulled. The CIT(A) held that the notice was issued on 29/03/2008 and sent by post, which was within the prescribed period. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's claim regarding the service of notice under section 143(2).

2. Delay in Filing the Appeal Before the CIT(A):
The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 08/08/2011 against the AO's order dated 24/12/2009, resulting in a delay of 554 days. The CIT(A) noted that the demand notice and assessment order were sent by registered post on 31/12/2009, and the delay was unjustified. The Tribunal upheld this finding, emphasizing that the assessee did not submit a separate application for condonation of delay and failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay.

3. Service of Demand Notice and Assessment Order:
The CIT(A) confirmed that the demand notice and assessment order were sent by registered post on 31/12/2009, and the postal authorities marked the envelope as "refused to receive." The assessee argued that the address on the registered letter was incorrect and that the business had closed in 2008, making it impossible to refuse the notice. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the address on the registered letter matched the address in the return of income and other documents submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim of non-receipt was an afterthought.

4. Reasonable Opportunity and Condonation of Delay:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not afford a reasonable opportunity and treated the appeal as out of limitation without deciding the grounds on merit. The Tribunal found that the assessee's counsel attended multiple hearings before the AO but failed to produce the required documents. The assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 due to non-cooperation. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no sufficient cause for the delay and that the assessee was guilty of negligence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the decision to dismiss the appeal due to the inordinate delay of 554 days. The Tribunal emphasized that "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay is a factual question and depends on the circumstances of each case. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the first ground of appeal, as it would be of academic interest only.

Order:
The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22.6.2015.

---