2022 (6) TMI 1235 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal challenging ex parte order dismissed due to significant delay in filing.

Rushabh Precision Bearings Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–7 (2), Mumbai

Rushabh Precision Bearings Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–7 (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues:Challenging ex parte order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2003-04. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.Analysis:The appellant challenged an ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding disallowances made in the assessment year 2003-04. Despite multiple adjournments at the request of the appellant, the appeal proceeded ex parte as neither the appellant nor any representative appeared. The appellant raised grounds related to disallowances on depreciation, deferred tax adjustment, and bad debts, contesting the decisions made by the tax authorities. The appellant also claimed that the additions and disallowances were illegal and without jurisdiction, and the order lacked a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard.The appellant filed the appeal with a condonation application for a significant delay of 10 years in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to ongoing labor disputes, attachment of premises by authorities, and financial distress leading to the appellant's promoters being declared insolvent. The delay was supported by various legal proceedings and orders affecting the appellant's ability to pursue assessments and appeals. The appellant sought condonation based on these circumstances.The Tribunal considered the legal implications of the delay in filing the appeal. The provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, regarding winding up proceedings and limitation periods were analyzed in detail. The Tribunal highlighted the requirement for leave from the Court for legal proceedings after a winding up order and the exclusion of specific periods for limitation computation. The Tribunal examined the appellant's claim of sufficient cause for the delay and found that the appellant failed to prove a valid reason for not filing the appeal within the limitation period. As a result, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred, keeping the raised issues open for future adjudication if they arise.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to establish sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. The legal analysis focused on the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, related to winding up proceedings and limitation periods, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with legal requirements in initiating appeals after winding up orders.