TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nancial management. Even before the Ld. CIT(A) they had engaged a Chartered Accountant to represent the case on their behalf. The reason stated in their affidavit are not convincing for the fact that the impugned order received by the then Accounts Manager in 2014 itself, but he was stated to have left company and the country in the month of May, 2016 i.e. almost about 25 months after passing of the impugned order. Further reason assigned by the assessee is that the assessee came to know disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A) only after the department initiated recovery proceedings against the assessee in March, 2016, which is also not convincing and not a reasonable cause, because the assessee being a private limited company, would have reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against order dated 6.3.2014 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Baroda [for short Ld. CIT(A)] in Appeal No. CB/IV-A-355/2011-12 relating to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Registry has pointed out a delay of 712 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal, and therefore, appeal is time barred by limitation. Shri Sarath Rajendraprasad, Director of assessee-company has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay by stating reasons for impugned delay as follows: AFFIDAVIT I, Sarath Rajendraprasad Nair, S/o. Shri Rajendraprasad R. Nair, Director of Ironbuild Systems Pvt. Ltd., V.U. Nagar hereby declare on oath as under: 1. That I am Director in Ironbuild Systems Pvt. Ltd. V.U. Nagar 2. That the appeal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is true and correct. I am aware that doing wrong Affidavit is a crime. 3. As can be seen from this affidavit, the impugned appellate order dated 6.3.2014 was stated to have been received by the assessee-company by its the then Accounts Manager, Shri Prakash Mannari who was in-charge of the accounts and finance of the company. It is also stated that he left the assessee-company in the month of May, 2016 and left country for better job opportunity. The assessee came to know about the disposal of the appeal when it received recovery notices from the Department. 4. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee-company. The assessee is a private limited. No doubt it has its own Accounts Manager to look after a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) erred in confirming addition of ₹ 33,61,451/- made by assessing officer on account of unverified purchases by invoking provision of Sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 6. Further, looking into the merits of the case also, laxity in filing appeal is more evident in the conduct of the assessee-company before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. In this regard, we observe as follows. 7. A perusal of order of the Ld. CIT(A) makes it very clear that while completing the assessment, the Ld. AO has granted six opportunities to the assessee prove their case. Even before the CIT(A) there were two remand report called for by the Ld. CIT(A) and the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) are as follows: 4.3.1. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x cases were returned back by the post office. Further, out of the parties to whom appellant to establish the genuineness of transactions made with these parties with the help of other evidences. For e.g. in case of purchase, it should have provided the details of materials purchased, evidences regarding their transportation, regarding entry in stock register and utilization in the business of the appellant. Similarly/regarding the other expenses it was incumbent upon the appellant to provide evidence regarding the rendering of services by other parties for whom the payments were made to them. But, right from the beginning, despite being provided with several opportunities during the course of the assessment proceedings as well as the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO/confirmations were filed before the AO are directed to be deleted. 4.4. So far as the addition of ₹ 2,14,783/- on account of discrepancy between the amounts confirmed by the creditors and the books of accounts of the appellant is concerned, the appellant's explanation have already been reduced above. The appellant has filed explanation regarding amount of ₹ 79,720/- out of the total addition of ₹ 2,14,783/-. The explanations regarding difference in opening balances are acceptable as the corresponding effect has to go to the preceding year. Regarding other explanations filed, the AO is directed to verify the contentions of the appellant and if this are found to be correct, the addition will stand deleted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
