Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Order This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, dated 30.08.2023, for the assessment year 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under: -
1. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case.
2. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not deciding the appeal on the merits of the case and is not justified in passing in limine, ex parte order, not on merits & tolly non speaking 2 order that too without considering Statement of Facts, Grounds of appeal
and the documents, evidences in the form of Bank Statement, J Forms, Land holdings duly submitted & uploaded before the Ld. CITIA) along with Form 35.
1. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), has erred while upholding the illegal and arbitrary addition as made by the Ld. AO, without appreciating 3 the fact that the appellant herein is an agriculturist and all the deposits in the bank account are from agricultural receipts, duly supported by land holdings and J-Forma.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A), has erred while upholding the illegal and arbitrary addition as made by the Ld. AO, without appreciating the fact that the amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- was redeposited in OBC bank on 11.11.2016 out of the amount of Rs 2,95,000/- which was withdrawn on 29.10.2016 from the same bank account and due to declaration of the demonetisation declared on 08.11.2016 the cash withdrawn on 29.10.2016 was redeposited as cash withdrawn was still not utilized by the assessee and was still remaining with the assessee.
5. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred while upholding the additions, without appreciating the fact that during the mouth of October, 2016 itself, the total receipts from sale of agricultural produce was Rs. 12.67.887/- duly supported by 1-Forms and because of the declaration of demonetisation on 08.11.2016 the cash available with the assessee amounting to Rs 8,00,000/- was deposited in the joint bank account of the assessee 6. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred while upholding the additions, without appreciating the fact that section 69A and 6 section 115BBE are not at all applicable as all the cash deposits are duly explainable and out of legitimate and genuine sources of the assessee.
7. That the appellant craves leave to add OR amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off.
At the outset, it has been pointed out by the ld. AR that in the present case, the orders passed by the lower authorities are also ex-parte orders and request was made to remand the matter back to the file of the AO.
The Registry has pointed out that there is a massive delay of 590 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal.
The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 6.10.2025 for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under:-
Per Contra, the ld. DR strongly opposed the request of the Assessee for condonation of this inordinate delay.
I have carefully considered the reasons stated in the Affidavit filed by the Assessee seeking condonation of delay. In my considered opinion, the explanations furnished for not filing the appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal within the prescribed time are vague, general and wholly unsubstantiated. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that any sincere or bona fide effort was made by the Assessee to ascertain the status of the matter from its representative or counsel. I am equally unable to comprehend the failure on the part of the professionals to communicate with their client in a clear and responsible manner.
In recent times, there appears to be an increasing tendency to attribute the entire blame for delay to alleged lapses or negligence of professionals, without placing even an iota of supporting material or an affidavit from such persons. I do not approve of this practice of casting imputations on professionals in the absence of any scintilla of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of authoritative pronouncements, has repeatedly held that a party seeking condonation of delay must furnish a satisfactory, credible, and cogent explanation, supported by material evidence, including a reasonably detailed day-to-day account of the circumstances preventing the timely filing of the appeal.
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the application seeking condonation of delay. The conclusion is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others [Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021], relied upon by the Ld. DR, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed an application for condonation of a prolonged delay on materially similar facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, at Para 6.2 of the said judgment, reproduced the factual matrix to the following effect:
“6.2 We have gone through the averments in the application for the condonation of delay. There is no sufficient explanation for the period from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was preferred in the year 2021. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 has not at all been explained.
Therefore, the High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously.”
In my considered view, the factual matrix of the present appeal is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra). The reasons stated in the Affidavit do not bring out the true and complete picture and fail to establish any sufficient or reasonable cause for the inordinate delay. Accordingly, the request for condonation of delay is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed
Order pronounced on 18-11-2025.