TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. In this case, the assessee is not at all vigilant and is also negligent in pursuing of filing of appeals As the period of limitation should not come as a hindrance to do substantial justice. In this case, the assessee has not given any sufficient and reasonable cause to explain the huge delay in filing of the appeals - we are of the firm view that there is no other alternative for the Ld. CIT(A) to reject all the appeals at the threshold. We feel that the delay has not been properly explained by the assessee and it has not brought any material on record to show sufficient cause for such delay. Therefore, there is no merit in considering the grounds of appeals raised by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 and in response to the notice, the assessee filed it's reply. After considering the reply given by the assessee, the AO made the addition of ₹ 8,68,800/- and completed the assessment. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was sustained and imposed penalty of ₹ 2,68,460/-. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 859 days, 669 days and 755 days. The assessee had made applications on the date of filing of the appeals for condonation of delay and the main reasons given in the condonation petition was that the accountant of the assessee could not file the appeals since he has been suffering from health problems which led to severe heart attac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alidity/jurisdiction; And e. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the accountant of the assessee firm could not file the appeals since he has undergone bypass surgery due to heart attack. The assessee was under the impression that all the appeals were filed and pending before the Ld. CIT(A). It was the further submission of the assessee that the assessee came to know about non-filing of the appeals only after his bank accounts were attached by the AO u/s. 226(3) of the Act as part of the recovery proceedings of the tax demand. There is no wilful negligence or lapse on the part of the assessee firm. Therefore, pleaded for condonation of delay. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not at all vigilant and is also negligent in pursuing of filing of appeals. However, the period of limitation should not come as a hindrance to do substantial justice. In this case, the assessee has not given any sufficient and reasonable cause to explain the huge delay in filing of the appeals. After considering the above discussions, we are of the firm view that there is no other alternative for the Ld. CIT(A) to reject all the appeals at the threshold. We feel that the delay has not been properly explained by the assessee and it has not brought any material on record to show sufficient cause for such delay. Therefore, there is no merit in considering the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee and accordingly dismissed. 8. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
