{"id":1524,"date":"2018-06-30T11:17:08","date_gmt":"2018-06-30T11:17:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ito-v-gisil-designs-pvt-ltd-delhitrib-www-itatonline-org\/"},"modified":"2019-04-21T04:59:35","modified_gmt":"2019-04-21T04:59:35","slug":"ito-v-gisil-designs-pvt-ltd-delhitrib-www-itatonline-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ito-v-gisil-designs-pvt-ltd-delhitrib-www-itatonline-org\/","title":{"rendered":"ITO v. Gisil Designs Pvt. Ltd (2018) 65 ITR  38  (SN)\/ 195 TTJ 100 (UO)  (Delhi)(Trib)  www.itatonline.org"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that ;<b><\/b>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 P CIT to file the appeal has been granted after the period of limitation. Hence sufficient cause is not shown\u00a0 <strong>.<\/strong>( ITA No.3397\/Del\/2016, dt. 20.04.2018)(AY. 2007-08)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-content\/uploads\/Gisil-Designs-Condonation-Delay.pdf\"><strong>[Click here to download PDF file]\u00a0<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal \u2013 Condonation of delay- Delay of 92 days \u2013 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 PCIT to file the appeal has been granted after the period of limitation. Hence sufficient cause is not shown [ S.253(1) ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digest"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-oA","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1524"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1524\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5037,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1524\/revisions\/5037"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}