Appeal dismissed for 384-day delay despite claiming non-receipt of notice under section 250

ITAT Raipur dismissed the appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone a 384-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notice u/s 250, but the tribunal found the conduct lackadaisical and callous. Despite receiving a letter u/s 133(6) on 31.03.2023 indicating an ex-parte CIT(A) order from 12.09.2022, the assessee waited another 9 months to file the appeal. The tribunal held that limitation laws must be construed strictly and delay cannot be condoned mechanically without sufficient cause. The assessee failed to provide plausible reasons justifying the inordinate delay.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assessee in default under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Summary:

Issue 1: Assessee in Default under Section 201(1) & 201(1A)
The assessee challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the Income Tax Officer's action treating the appellant as an assessee in default and determining a total demand payable of Rs. 4,30,668/- under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the recipient was registered under Section 12AA of the Act and had filed its return of income, considering the sum received on which TDS was not made for computing income. The Tribunal noted that the appeals involved identical issues for different assessment years and decided to adjudicate based on ITA No. 364/RPR/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13.

Issue 2: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals
The appeals were barred by a delay of 384 days. The assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay, citing reasons such as non-receipt of notice under Section 250 and the appellate order, and coming to know about the order only on 31/03/2023 while filing a reply to the recovery of demand notice. The Tribunal examined the reasons for the delay and found that the assessee was duty-bound to access the ITBA portal, especially since the appeal was filed at the assessee's instance. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's conduct showed a lackadaisical approach and callous conduct during the appellate proceedings, and even after being informed about the ex-parte order, the assessee took another 9 months to file the appeal.

The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji and others, and M/s Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT, but found that the reasons offered by the assessee did not constitute sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation must be construed strictly and declined to condone the inordinate delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, including ITA Nos. 364 to 368/RPR/2023, as barred by limitation without addressing the merits of the case. The order was pronounced in the open court on 29/01/2024.

---