SADARAM PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

The common ground raised is that the AO erred in reopening the issue and making addition of 12.5% for the bogus purchases.

Despite notices, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. Ld. DR pointed out that there is a delay of 478 days in filing these appeals. He further pointed out that grounds of appeal are not arising out of the order of ld.CIT(A). He submitted that ld.CIT(A) has sustained only 9% disallowance.

Upon careful consideration, I note that there is a delay of 478 days in filing these appeals. In the submission, reasonable cause has been attributed to the non- cooperation of an unnamed consultant and the assessee having less knowledge in this regard. I find that this is a submission without the backing of any supporting material. Hence, the huge delay of 478 days cannot be condoned. It is settled law that assessee has to be vigilant and not careless in arranging affairs. Hence, these appeals by the assessee are dismissed in limine as time-barred.

In the result, these appeals by the assessee are dismissed.