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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4844/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 January 2022AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the substantial delay in filing the appeals and found the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay to be unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the delay could not be condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. The common ground was the addition for bogus purchases. There was a significant delay of 478 days in filing these appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the inordinate delay of 478 days in filing the appeals could be condoned. The secondary issue, though not decided on merits, was the addition made by the AO for bogus purchases.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri T.Sankar
For Respondent: Shri T.Sankar
Hearing: 12.01.2022

O R D E R Per Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

These appeals by the assessee are directed against respective orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the concerned assessment years.

2.

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

3.

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.

2 Sadaram Patel

4.

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.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open court on 12 .01.2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →