| COURT: | ITAT Delhi |
| CORAM: | Bhavnesh Saini (JM), O. P. Kant (AM) |
| SECTION(S): | 253, 5 of Limitation Act |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Condonation of delay |
| COUNSEL: | R. S. Ahuja |
| DATE: | April 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | June 27, 2018 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2007-08 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| Condonation of delay (92 days): The AO was negligent in filing the remand report before the CIT(A). The same attitude has continued at the stage of filing appeal to the ITAT. The excuse that the appeal was not filed due to the AO being busy with time barring assessment is not acceptable. The AO deliberately overlooked the impugned order and did not file appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Even the authorization by Pr. CIT to file the appeal has been granted after the period of limitation. Hence sufficient cause is not shown | |
The same conduct of the AO continued even after passing of the impugned appellate order because the appellate order was kept pending without any action and no appeal has been filed by the Department within the period of limitation. It is simply stated in the application for condonation of delay that due to time barring assessment, the impugned order was overlooked and got barred by limitation. However, it is a fact that AO was aware that departmental appeal would be meritless. It is, therefore, clear that the AO deliberately overlooked the impugned order and did not file appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Even the authorization by Ld. Pr. CIT to file the appeal have been granted after the period of limitation to file the appeal on 07.06.2016. Therefore, no sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the period of limitation
Recent Comments