SALEM STEEL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The explanation provided, attributing the delay to an erstwhile consultant without naming them, did not inspire confidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning AY 2011-12, raising an issue about the addition for bogus purchases. There was a significant delay of 338 days in filing the appeal.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained by the assessee to warrant condonation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
N/A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 10.8.2018 pertains to A.Y. 2011-12.
The issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition @ 12.5% for bogus purchases.
At the outset it is noted that there is delay of 338 days in filing this appeal. Despite notice on several occasions, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In filing reasonable cause for the delay assessee has submitted that the delay was on account of his erstwhile consultant. No name for the erstwhile consultant has been given. In a separate affidavit a person named Rajkumar Singh is mentioning that he was engaged by the assessee and he cannot remember the date of engagement and he only vaguely remembers that he was engaged for this assessment year. He submits that the delay is on account of his failure.
Upon hearing learned Departmental Representative and perusing the record, I find that the reasonable cause attributed for the delay does not inspire any confidence. Neither the assessee has given the name of his
2 M/s. Salem Steel Industries erstwhile consultant nor the said person submitting the affidavit that delay is on his failure as clearly accepted that he was engaged by the assessee. In this view of the matter in my considered opinion there is no cogent reasonable cause for the delay. Hence, this appeal liable to be dismissed as time barred. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as such.
In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.3.2022.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
