9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to appreciate or appraise the evidences and arguments submitted by the assessee to discharge its burden under sec. 68. 4. Ground 4: Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition made by Ld. A.O. on account of share application money raised during the year amounting of Rs. 3,80,00,000/-. The above addition by AO and its sustainance by CIT(A) is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be deleted. 5. Ground 5: Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition made by Ld. A.O. on account of commission of Rs. 38,000/- on share application money raised during the year. The above addition by AO and its sustainance by CIT(A) is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be deleted. 6. Ground 6: Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO. While passing appellate order Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the submission made by the assessee during assessment proceeding with respect to identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness of the transaction. 7. Ground 7: The learned assessing officer erred in completing the assessment based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures and making addition of Rs. 3,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Year 2011/12 Appeal No. ITA No. 163/RPR/2022 (Assessee) Date of hearing 16.02.2024 Respected Sirs, The appellate order was passed by Id. CIT(A) on 16.08.2021, which was received by the appellant on 30.09.2021 against which appeal has been filed by the appellant on 05.09.2022, with delay of 280 days. Further to our earlier application for condonation of delay and the affidavit submitted in this regard following further explanation may kindly be considered by your honours: - 1. The appeal was delayed primarily due to the reason that accountant of appellant Shri Siyaram Sahu, who was entrusted with the work of filing of appeal, was not diligent in filing appeal timely and that he left the job of assessee abruptly without informing the directors that the second appeal was not filed within the stipulated time. 2. The appeal fee challan was paid by the assessee on 10.11.2021 and the appeal memo was signed also on 11.11.2021. The appeal was drafted by the counsel of assessee of Kolkata who had sent it to the assessee at Raipur for filing second appeal. The assessee had entrusted the work of tax compliance to the accountant. 3. However, the accountant Shri Siyaram Sahu w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lves an inordinate delay of 280 days and the reasons explained by the Ld. AR cannot be considered to be reasonable, therefore, he strongly objected to the application seeking condonation of delay and request that such request should be rejected. 8. We have considered the rival contentions, on perusal of the condonation application of the assessee wherein the assessee has mentioned the reasons for delay that in the month of November 2021. The accountant of the assessee company, Shri Siyaram Sahu, who was not carrying out his duties diligently and certain lapses were noticed on his part therefore, said employee was expelled from the job in the last week of November 2021 however, he did not inform the directors about the pending work which had remained incomplete. It is also an admitted fact that challan for the appeal was deposited by the assessee on 10.11.2021 i.e. before the due date of filling of the appeal however, the appeal could not be filed because such tasks which were to be undertaken by the said accountant was not done by him and also not informed to the directors. 9. The contentions of the assessee that the accountant has left many things incomplete, and it appears that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case, as observed by us hereinabove, as the assessee had not only remained negligent regarding the process of law and had filed the appeal before us after 280 days but had also failed to come forth with any plausible explanation as regards the reasons leading to the said delay, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the same. Also, we may observe at this juncture that the law of limitation has to be construed strictly as it has an effect of vesting with one and taking away the right from the other party. The delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 11. We may herein observe that in the case of state of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. the expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the court should fall with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
