TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the reasons beyond the control of the assessee company as stated in the application. The facts on record clearly indicate that delay was due to negligence, lethargy or inaction on the part of the assessee company and therefore not worthy of condonation. Thus we decline to condone the inordinate delay of 121 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 1951/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2023 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : None For the Department : Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 032/-). The Ld. AO also noticed that the assessee has shown huge creditors of Rs. 3,39,34,590/- out of total purchases of Rs. 9,43,64,639/-. The Ld. AO required the assessee to explain the reasons of drastic loss in net profit though the assessee has booked gross profit. The explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who observed, inter alia that only ledger copies of few expenses without any supporting documents, viz. bills/vouchers were filed before him and therefore genuineness of expenses claimed could not be established. He applied section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act ) and rejected the book results. By applying net profit rate of 5% on declared turnover of Rs. 6,48,65,701/-, the Ld. AO determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case (namely CA Shashi Shekhar Rai) resigned from the firm on 08.11.2018, the appeal was not filed in time. Immediately after the receipt of notice of penalty, the appeal was filed. The assessee cited the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Concord India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nirmala Devi 118 ITR 507 (SC); Ramnath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao and ors. (2002) AIR 1201; Collector Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji and ors. 167 ITR 471 (SC). It also prayed that the assessee be provided fair, meaningful and proper opportunity to establish that the order passed by the CIT(A) and the AO are without jurisdiction and lack merits. 7. Records shows that before the Tribunal there is only one appearance for the assessee on 05.09.2018. On that date hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record clearly indicate that delay was due to negligence, lethargy or inaction on the part of the assessee company and therefore not worthy of condonation. 9. In Sitaram Ramcharan vs. Nagarshana (1960) 1 SCR 875 the Hon ble Supreme Court observed at page 889 of the Report that it cannot be disputed that in dealing with the question of condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party has to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that the explanation has to cover the whole of the period of delay. 10. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Veda Bai alias Vaijayanta Bai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao and ors. 253 ITR 798 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
