BARIPADA RCMS LIMITED,BARIPADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA

None represented on behalf None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri and Shri Charan Dass, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue. An adjournment petition dated An adjournment petition dated 25.6.2024 is placed on record, stating that due to ill 25.6.2024 is placed on record, stating that due to ill 25.6.2024 is placed on record, stating that due to ill-health, the Chief Executive of the appellant society will not be able to attend the hearing, and of the appellant society will not be able to attend the hearing, and of the appellant society will not be able to attend the hearing, and P a g e 1 | 3 requested to adjourn the appeal to another date. As the appeal can be decided in the absence of the assessee, we reject the adjournment petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal.

A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi shows that the appeal has been filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) with delay of 332 days. The ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of this delay and had not admitted the appeal. A perusal of para 3.4 of the order of ld CIT(A) also clearly shows that the appellant has not furnished any reason for delay in filing of appeal in Form No.35. Further, the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Neither has the assessee adduced any reason for the delay. As the assessee has not mentioned any reason for condoning the delay before the ld CIT(A), the Tribunal is not in a position to examine the reason. This being so, the order of the ld CIT(A) stands upheld and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed .