JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. DCIT4(3) (1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated
06.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals)–3, Bhopal [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2013–14. The assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging, inter alia: (i) addition of ₹44,01,04,000/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”); (ii) addition of ₹15,54,465/- relating to alleged penny stock transactions; (iii) add unexplained expendi of the transaction commodity transact amounting to ₹8,85,2
2. At the outset, w none appeared on b registered post on 28
envelope has not bee the General Clauses
The assessee has n adjournment. We ar interested in prosecu dispose of the appeal
Departmental Repre available on record.
3. At the threshold in filing the appeal defective as it was assessee-company. W for condonation of d delay, was found on Jaygan
ITA dition of ₹11,08,57,180/- under ture; (iv) addition of ₹14,58,70, value of ₹14,58,70,45,800/- tions; and (v) addition of i
20,465/-.
we may like to mention that des behalf of the assessee. Notice
8th August, 2025 though postal n returned undelivered, and hen
Act, service is deemed to hav neither attended the proceedin re therefore satisfied that the uting the appeal. Accordingly, l ex-parte qua the assessee after esentative (DR) and perusing d, the registry has reported a d
. Further, the appeal was als not signed by the Managing
When the matter was taken up delay, nor any affidavit setting record. Although column 11
nga Exim India Pvt. Ltd
2
A No. 4406/MUM/2025
r section 69C for 458/- being 1%
in share and nterest income spite due notice, was issued by authorities. The nce, by virtue of e been effected.
ngs nor sought assessee is not we proceed to r hearing the Ld.
g the material delay of 96 days so noted to be Director of the , no application out reasons for of Form No. 36

acknowledges the ex not constitute a valid
4. We have heard material placed on consideration is wh affidavit explaining t prescribed under sec
4.1 It is a trite law t and the conditions su equally statutory. Se filed within the pre
Tribunal to admit an satisfied that the app the appeal within suc
253(5) is conditioned formal request supp cause for the delay.
squarely upon the a 253(5) is conditioned formal request supp cause for the delay.
4.2 In the present c filed belatedly. Howe
Jaygan
ITA xistence of delay, mere acknow d request for condonation under d submission of the Ld. DR an record. The central issue that hether, in the absence of any the delay, an appeal filed bey tion 253(3) can be entertained b that the right of appeal is a crea ubject to which such right may ection 253(3) mandates that an scribed period. Section 253(5) n appeal after expiry of limitat pellant had “sufficient cause” for ch period. Thus the exercise of d upon the assessee demonstra ported by reasons the existen
. The burden to satisfy these assessee. Thus the exercise of j d upon the assessee demonstra ported by reasons the existen case, it is admitted position the a ver, the assessee has neither fi nga Exim India Pvt. Ltd
3
A No. 4406/MUM/2025
wledgment does the Act.
nd perused the t arises for our y application or yond the period by the Tribunal?
ature of statute, be exercised are appeal shall be ) empowers the tion only if it is r not presenting juri iction u/s ating, by way of nce of sufficient conditions lies juri iction u/s ating, by way of nce of sufficient appeal has been iled any petition for condonation of d that prevented the course of hearing nei was offered in writing discretionary juri i absence of any ma sufficient cause or su so would be to rew legislative intent gove condonation on the acknowledgment of d whatsoever there is n delay could be cond exercising juri icti unfulfilled, the appea that the appeal is ba any request or cau dismissed in-limine a that assessee is it l advised by way of condonation of the evidences.

Jaygan
ITA delay nor any affidavit explaini filing of appeal within limitati ither the assessee attended nor g to cure the defect for invokin iction u/s 253(5). The Tribu aterial on record, assume th upply reasons on behalf of the write the statutory conditions erning limitation. The law does n e basis of conjecture, symp delay. In absence of any appli no material before us on the ba doned. Since the mandatory p ion under section 253(5) r al cannot be admitted in law.W arred by limitation and, being u use shown for condonation, s barred by limitation. However liberty for seeking revival of th filing properly constituted an delay supported by the cogen nga Exim India Pvt. Ltd
4
A No. 4406/MUM/2025
ing the reasons ion. During the any explanation g the Tribunal’s unal cannot, in he existence of assessee. To do s or dilute the not contemplate pathy, or mere ication, affidavit asis of which the re-condition for remains wholly
We therefore hold unsupported by is liable to be it is made clear he appeal if so n application of nt reasons and 5. In the result, ap
Order pronoun (SANDEEP G
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 26/11/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Jaygan
ITA ppeal of the assessee is not adm ced in the open Court on 26/
GOSAIN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu nga Exim India Pvt. Ltd
5
A No. 4406/MUM/2025
mitted.
11/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai