9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, decline to condone the delay of 137 days and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss the captioned appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.10.2022 which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 24.12.2016 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts circumstances of the case and in law, ld. AO ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the purchases of Rs. 82,75,000 from 4 parties as 'bogus purchases'; disallowing of Rs. 20,68,750, which is 25% of Rs. 82,75,000; arbitrary/ bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout any corresponding sales of goods. After deliberating at length on the modus operandi that was adopted by the brokers/entry operators and certain rice millers who had admitted of their involvement in providing/facilitating bogus bills in lieu of commission, and referring to their statements which were recorded u/s. 131 of the Act a/w. those recorded in the course of their cross examination by rice millers who were alleged by them as beneficiary, it was observed by the A.O that brokers namely, Shri Sanjay Sharma, Shri Aditya Sharma, Shri Kamelsh Kesharwani, Shri Ghanshuam Rijwani and Shri Narad Sahu had stated on oath that they had provided bogus entries or bogus bills to various rice millers. It was also observed by the A.O that the assessee had failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases claimed to have been made from the aforementioned parties on the basis of supporting documentary evidences, viz. delivery challans. 4. Considering the fact that the 4 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases of Rs. 82,75,000/- were in the course of investigation found to be bogus firms, the A.O called upon the assessee to substantiate the authenticity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Rs. 50,000/- on account of wages expenses as against claimed by the assessee at Rs. 10,43,582/-. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 24.12.2016 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 30,21,190/-. 6. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: 5. Decision :- During the appeal proceedings, the assessee was provided an opportunity of being heard on 01.03.2021, 26.11.2021, 06.01.2022 and 06.05.2022, however, no details are filed despite the fact that notices were duly served. The approach of the assessee amply shows that it is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, having considered the entire facts of the case and evidence available on record, the appeal so filed is dismissed. 6. Thus the appeal is dismissed. 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short DR ) took a strong exception as regards the maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also before me, I would mince no words in observing that the same does not merit acceptance. In fact, if I condone the inordinate delay involved in the present case where the assessee had not only delayed filing of the present appeal even before me, but also not participated in the appellate proceedings, then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for the times to come. I am of a strong conviction that as the assessee had on account of his callous conduct and a lackadaisical approach delayed the filing of the present appeal by a substantial period of 137 days, therefore, the application filed by him seeking condonation of the delay therein involved does not merit acceptance and is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 12. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No.6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y.1999-2000, dated 23.03.2020, had held that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained and inordinate delay coupled with negligence or sheer c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious approach, but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. In the present case, the delay of 137 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned on account of failure on his part to check his email account where the order of the CIT(Appeals), NFAC was dropped. In fact, the conduct of the assessee before the lower appellate authority clearly evidences his disregard for the process of law, which, I find, he had carried forward before me by preferring the appeal beyond a period of 137 days after the lapse of the stipulated time period. 15. Also, as observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, I decline to condone the delay of 137 days and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
