Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, M.S.Raman, JJ.
Laxman Barik – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur & Ors. – Respondents
ITA No. 01 of 2021
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Delay Condonation - Income Tax - The court dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessee-Appellant on the ground of delay, as the reasons for the delay were found to be inadequate and unconvincing. The court declined to condone the delay based on the unsatisfactory reasons provided by the Appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessee-Appellant due to a delay of 255 days, as the reasons for the delay were found to be inadequate and unconvincing.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the reasons for the delay provided by the Appellant to be unsatisfactory and declined to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal, stating that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Issues: Delay in filing appeals, Adequacy of reasons for delay, Court's interference with Tribunal's order
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the unsatisfactory reasons provided for the delay and the expectation for the Appellant to follow up with their lawyer on the outcome of the proceedings before the CIT.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the Court.
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Sidharth Sankar Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department enters appearance for the Respondents and files appearance memo in Court today, which is taken on record.
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (Tribunal) has by the impugned order dated 24th February, 2020 dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessee-Appellant on the ground of delay.
3. Admittedly, the delay was to the extent of 255 days. The Tribunal has found the reasons afforded by the Appellant to be inadequate and unconvincing and has accordingly declined to condone the delay.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant drew attention of the Court to the application filed by the Appellant in the Tribunal seeking to explain the delay. A perusal of the said application shows that the reasons for the delay are neither convincing nor satisfactory. The mere fact that the Appellant came to know of the impugned order of the CIT only at the time of it being given effect to by the Assessing Officer and not earlier is not at all convincing. The Appellant was expected to follow up with his lawyer on the outcome of the proceedings before the CIT.
5. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
Unsatisfactory reasons for delay can lead to dismissal of appeals.
The right to appeal should not be compromised due to ineffective service of notice, and administrative errors must not preclude access to justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
