Transport Operator’s Income Tax Appeal Dismissed After 754-Day Delay and Failure to Rectify Filing Defects:

The ITAT dismissed an assessee's appeal filed with a 754-day delay, citing the absence of a condonation application, unrectified defects, and lack of cooperation during proceedings.
Delayed by Over Two Years: ITAT Declares Appeal Non-Maintainable

Transport Operator’s Income Tax Appeal Dismissed After 754-Day Delay and Failure to Rectify Filing Defects
The ITAT Bangalore dismissed a 754-day delayed appeal, as the assessee did not cooperate during the tax proceedings and also did not seek condonation of the delay, explaining the reason behind such a substantial delay.
The assessee, Shri Dhanaram Chowdary, had challenged an order dated October 26, 2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore. The case pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10.
The present appeal was time-barred by 754 days. During the personal hearing before the tribunal, no one appeared from the assessee's side. When the tribunal analysed the case, it noted the present appeal was filed with a defect in it, which remained unrectified till the date of the hearing.
Additionally, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to explain the reason behind the delay. In such a situation, the tribunal was not authorised to condone a substantial delay of 754 days. It was also observed that "the appeal fees are remitted under the ‘Tax’ head instead of 'Others'. "
In the aforementioned circumstances, the tribunal could not accept the present appeal. The appeal was also not maintainable, as the assessee had not rectified the defects flagged by the Registry.
Even the assessee had not furnished any application seeking condonation of the delay, explaining the reason behind the 754-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the aforementioned findings, the tribunal concluded to dismiss the appeal, as it was non-maintainable under the law.
In conclusion, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2458My Recent Articles
- A Taxpayer Cannot Be Forced to Pay GST Twice Merely Because Tax Paid Under Wrong Head, Rules High CourtPremium
- ITAT Restores Appeal After Condoning 1,929-Day Delay Caused by Director’s Jail Term and IllnessPremium
- Partial Tax Refund Must Be Adjusted Against Interest First, ITAT Upholds Section 244A Refund Interest ComputationPremium
- Farmer Receives Rs 72.76 Lakh GST Recovery Notice for Alleged Shell Company in Tamil Nadu
- ITAT Deletes Rs 2.42 Lakh Disallowance, Allows Depreciation on Capitalised Forex Loss Under Section 43APremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








