Gvpr Engineers Limited vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                      AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                          I.A.No.1 of 2022
                               in/and
                    I.T.T.A. No.242 of 2022

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



     Heard Ms. Prabhavathi, learned counsel for the

appellant.


2.   I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed to condone the delay

of 1546 days in filing the related appeal.


3.   Be it stated that the related appeal has been filed by

the appellant (assessee) under Section 260A of the Income

Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 29.02.2016

(received on 09.03.2016) passed by the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "B", Hyderabad

(Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.740/Hyd/2014 for the assessment

year 2010-11.


4.   The delay of 1546 days has been explained in the

following manner:
                                    2




             "Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned
     ITAT,   the   petitioner   herein   had   filed   an   appeal
     challenging the said order in the year 2016 and the
     same was returned with some objections having ITTASR
     No.1481 of 2016.       A copy of the online SR details
     showed in the High Court website is enclosed herewith.
     It is submitted that the petitioner was under bonafide
     belief that the said appeal papers were resubmitted and
     the appeal was numbered and pending for hearing. The
     petitioner enquired about the same when a similar order
     is passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
     Hyderabad "A" Bench in I.T.A.No.1617/Hyd/2017 for
     the assessment year 2013-14 dated 23-11-2021 in the
     petitioner's own case. Then the petitioner became aware
     of the fact that the appeal has been returned with
     certain objections and the same had never been
     resubmitted by the counsel. Hence, the delay."



5.   Thus, it is seen that the appeal which was filed in the

year 2016 was returned with office objections. It is stated

that the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the

appeal papers      were resubmitted. Subsequently, when

appellant enquired, it was found that the appeal which was

returned with objections was not resubmitted by the

counsel.
                               3




6.   We are unable to accept such untenable contentions

made on behalf of the appellant. Merely placing the blame

on the counsel cannot justify the inordinate delay of 1546

days. Even the particulars have not been furnished as to

when the appeal was filed, when it was returned, the name

of the counsel, whether the appellant had thereafter met

the counsel etc. On the basis of such bald statements, we

are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1546

days. No sufficient cause has been shown.


7.   As a matter of fact, once the appeal was filed before

this Court which was returned by the Registry with office

objections and thereafter not re-filed, it is not open for the

appellant to file a fresh appeal. Therefore, even the related

appeal would not be maintainable. If that be so, question

of condoning the delay would not arise.


8.   That    being   the   position,   I.A.No.1   of   2022   is

dismissed.
                             4




9.   Consequently, the related appeal is also dismissed.




                          ______________________________________
                                   UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ




                          ______________________________________
                                C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J


23.08.2022

vs