9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [ 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] 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 substantial clarification to support the application for condonation elaborating in the backdrop of sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, we decline to condone the same and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT Act, 1961 was issued on 26.09.2018 for AY 2011-12, on 08.08.2013 for AY 2012-13, on 09.09.2014 for AY 2013-14 and on 31.08.2015 for AY 2014-15. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the appellant is in receipt of share capital and share premium from various companies during the year under consideration. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs. 3,80,00,000/- in AY 2011-12, Rs. 15,49,95,000/- in AY 2012-13, Rs. 3,76,00,000/- in AY 2013-14 & Rs. 23,83,04,000/- in AY 2014-15 on account of share capital & share premium and treated as unexplained investment u/s 68 of the Act and Rs. 38,000/- in AY 2011-12 as commission @ 0.01% and added back to the total income of the appellant. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but without success the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Dissatisfied with the order of Ld. CIT(A) now the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 5. At the threshold of the hearing of this case it is observed that the present appeal is barred by limitation wherein the appeal was filed by the assessee with a delay of 280 days. When this infirmity was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... default, the assessee filed appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal belatedly. 6. In the case of assessee, search u/s 132 was conducted on 22.12.2021 because of which various proceedings were going on before the Investigation Wing for a long time. This also resulted in delay of filing second appeal as it did not come to the notice of directors at the relevant time. It is humbly submitted that once search takes place, generally, minimum six months' time is required for submitting details before the Investigation Wing, taking copy of the seized material and setting right the records of the assessee. Because of search also, some delay occurred. 7. Your honours would kindly appreciate that the delay in filing appeal was thus due to above reasons, which were beyond control of assessee. It is humbly submitted that there can be no intention on the part of assessee to delay the appeal as delay would only be to detriment of assessee and can never be advantageous to the assessee. It is incomprehensible that anybody would act contrary to his own interest. The unintended inadvertent default may kindly be seen by your honours in this background. 6. With the aforesaid contentions reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igence of the accountant which were the other tasks that could not be completed in stipulated time by the company or noncompliance on the part of the company which have occurred. In absence of any such violations by the company on account of negligence of the accountant who was reported to be expelled for which no supporting documents submitted before us. The assessee is a limited company having onus to comply with various applicable laws and procedures to run their business. It is incomprehensible to believe that such a corporate organization has defaulted in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time before the tribunal. Under such facts and circumstances, we can only infer that the delay was occurred on account of callous and lackadaisical approach on the part of the assessee company in not preferring the appeal within the stipulated time period. 10. On this aspect, we place reliance on the order of coordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
