Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.