CANNON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE MUMBAI

The Appea income as out part of total in company. 4. Those wer within the tot total income t from other sou 5. They can't sheets. So for that w Appeals as th Income Tax P condo nation 2. We noted that d behalf of the assess filed. The record furt well, when the app appearance on beh unexplained absenc prosecuting the appe appearance of the as not interested in pros 3. The learned Dep to the defect pointed in filing the appeal. O assessee has itself ac seeking condonation explanation supporte Can ITA al lent Commissioner eared in negotiati t of business income, where as other inco ncome of company impacting the total tu re mainly related to the job work charg tal turnover of the company during the ye tax Assessed/profit were drawn, includin urces. be termed as separate income under sa we are appealing against the order of c he notice were not received physically o Portal, so appeal is filled before you and of the delay. despite due service of notice, no see. No application seeking ad ther reveals that on three earli peal was listed for hearing, half of the assessee. Such ce clearly demonstrates lack eal. In the circumstances of the sessee,, we were of the opinion secuting the present appeal. partmental Representative invite out by the Registry regarding d On perusal of Form No. 36, it cknowledged the delay. However n of delay has been filed, ed by affidavit been placed on re nnon Industries Pvt. Ltd 2 A No. 3329/MUM/2025 ng the other ome was the rnover of the ges collected ear for which ng the income ame balance commissioner or not on the also seeking one appeared on djournment was ier occasions as there was no repeated and of interest in consistent non- that assessee is ed our attention delay of 99 days is seen that the r, no application nor has any ecord.

It is well settle period of limitation demonstrating suffici the present case, the the delay nor taken s In the absence of an absence of any expla limitation, is not mai as unadmitted. 5. Accordingly, the 6. However, it is m assessee from movin restoration of the a explaining the delay with law. 7. The appeal is di Order pronoun (ANIKESH BA JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 18/12/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.