MAJAHELP NETWORK MARKETING PVT. LTD.,SURAT, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), KOLKATA

Shri Mehul Shah, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Pampa Ray, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by the ld.AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It was the submission that the assessment order was served on the assessee on 02.08.2021 and the appeal has been filed on 08.05.2021. It was the submission that in the statement of facts the assessee has not mentioned that there is a delay in filing the appeal, insofar as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its suo moto Writ Petition in regard to suspension of Limitation Act had vide order dated 10.01.2022 held that no delay is to be computed during the Covid period. It was the submission that consequently the ld.CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. When the ld. Counsel was specifically asked as to how the ld. CIT(A) has to assume that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 10.01.2022 when the appeal was filed belatedly on 08.09.2021. Ld. AR submitted that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 referred to earlier orders also whereby the Limitation Act has been suspended. The ld. AR has not been able to draw my attention of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the period when the delay has been occurred, which has been suspended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that this is a case of non-representation before the ld.CIT(A) and non-filing of the condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A). It is admitted fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has by its suo moto orders suspended the Limitation Act during the Covid-19 period. However, a perusal of Form 35 filed by the assessee does not mention any delay but there is a delay of 06 days. The claim of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has not issued any defect notice in any of the notices issued to the assessee, which clearly shows that the assessee had received the notices but just not to respond. This also further shows that the assessee has not taken any action for the condonation of delay much less brought the delay to the attention of the ld. CIT(A). This being so, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A), insofar as no reason has been provided by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for the purpose of condonation of delay but the assessee is only seeking protection from a subsequent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to cover up the delay,