CHANDRAKANT VASUDEV PATIL,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.

We note that this appeal was filed on 01-04-2019 with a delay of 653 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 25-03-2019 explaining the reasons to condone the said delay of 653 days. We note that in Para No. 3 of the said affidavit, he stated that he was never informed that there are arrears of Income Tax Regular Demand due to addition of bogus purchases and only came to know on receipt of notice for penalty and recovery proceedings. Further, he deposed that the Consultant delayed in handing over the required papers, documents for filing the present appeal. He also stated that his Consultant did not bother to explain regarding the details relating to bogus purchases before the AO. We note that except stating that his Consultant did not hand over required documents and his non-representation with regard to issue on merits, the assessee did not explain the reasons for delay of 653 days properly on day to day basis from the year 2017 onwards till the filing of this appeal. The assessee requires to state proper reasons which really prevented the assessee to file the appeal in time and we find the reasons stated in Para No. 3 of the affidavit does not constitute the valid reasons which really caused delay in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, for not showing the sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time, the affidavit filed to condone the delay of 653 days is rejected.

In view of our decision in not condoning the delay, the issues raised in the grounds of appeal becomes infructuous and are dismissed as such.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed in limine.