SHANTI LAL BHANDARI ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1031/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14

Shri Shanti Lal Bhandari
80, Usha Colony, Malviya Nagar
Jaipur – 302 017
Ward -6(1)
Jaipur
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYPB 1171F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Meena,Addl.CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing

: 16/10/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30 /10/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 20.06.2025 for the assessment year 2013-14
raising therein following grounds of appeal.
‘’1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time barred without condoning the delay of 2 years and 7 months, ignoring the settled judicial principle that delay should be condoned where asufficient cause is shown, and that the cause of substantial justice should prevail over technicalities

2
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 79,82,299/- u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged cessation of liability in respect of sundry creditors, which is arbitrary, unjustified, and bad in law.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld.AO
3erred in rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act without pointing out any specific defects OR discrepancies, which is illegal and liable to be quashed
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld.AO erred in making the addition of Rs. 5,99,768/-by applying an estimated Gross Profit rate of 12% as against the declared GP rate of 10.4%, which is excessive, arbitrary and not supported by any cogent material OR comparable cases
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld AO erred in making in disallowance of Rs.51,406/- being 10% of conveyance expenses and depreciation which is excessive, arbitrary and not justified in the absence of any evidence of personal use Or non-business use.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld.AO erred in making the disallowance of Rs. 12,992/- out of total interest of Rs. 1,29,929/- on car loan , without any specific basis or justification which is excessive and arbitrary.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. AO erred in making the disallowance of Rs. 17,900/- out of various business expenses on an adhoc basis, which is excessive, arbitrary
, and not in accordance with law.’’

3
SHANTI LAL BHANDARI VS ITO , WARD 6(1) JAIPUR him. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) at para 5 (i) to (v) in his order is reproduced as under:-

‘’5. Decision:-
(i)
It is noted from the records that the appeal has been filed with a delay of more than 2 years & 7 months beyond the prescribed limitation period. However, in Column No. 14 of Form 35, which specifically asks whether there is delay in filing the appeal, the appellant has marked ‘’No’’ thereby asserting that the appeal is within limitation. Surprisingly, in Column No. 15, which mandates a disclosure of reasons in case of delay, no explanation has been provided, further indicating that the Appellant either failed to recognise the delay, despite the delay being significant, or chose not to address it. This indicates a material lack of application of mind and remarkable lack of procedural diligence.
(ii) The claim of timely filing is clearly contrary to the factual position emerging from the date of the impugned order and the date of filing of the appeal, both of which are part of the record. The omission to file a proper application for condonation, accompanied by cogent reasons, renders the appeal defective and non- maintainable in law. Even after the issuance of various hearing notices during the Appeal proceedings the same has not been cured.
(iii) In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the legal maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt’’ - the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. The Appellant, having failed to acknowledge and act upon a delay that is self-evident from the record, cannot now seek indulgence of the appellate forum without first satisfying the threshold requirement of limitation Procedural timelines are not empty formalities, they are fundamental to ensuring

4
SHANTI LAL BHANDARI VS ITO , WARD 6(1) JAIPUR certainty. discipline, and fairness in judicial and quasi- judicial processes.
(iv) This is not a case of a minor delay of a few days or even a few weeks where leniency could be reasonably considered. The delay here exceeds 2 years & 7 months an unusually long period that cannot be brushed aside as inadvertent. The Appellant's complete lack of awareness or disregard for such a material lapse reflects gross procedural indifference. Being oblivious to such a significant default cannot be treated as a bona fide omission, nor does it constitute sufficient cause for condonation. In view of the above, and in the absence of any valid application or explanation for the delay, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as time-barred and non- maintainable.
(v) In result, the appeal is held to be barred by limitation, and is dismissed in limine on that ground, without going into the merits of the case.’’
2.2
During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following written submission with the prayer to remand the case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to condone the delay since the appeal was in filed in time.
Written submission
‘’In case of Late Shri Shanti Lal Bhandari through legal heir
Your honour, in this case assessment order was made on 23.03.2016 and appeal before Ld. CIT (A) was filed on 05.04.2016 on paper mode well within time. I am filing the copy of Form 35. E-filing was not enabled during that date.

5
It is also noteworthy to mention that the legal heir of the assessee has filed a death certificate of Shri Shanti Lal Bhandari issued on 20-07-2017by the Govt. of Rajasthan, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, which shows that Shri Shanti Lal Bhandari passed away on 12-07-2017. 2.3
On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).
2.4
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason that the appeal was not timely filed and thus there was delay of more than 2 years & 7 months. It is noted from the records that the AO passed an assessment order on 23-03-2016 and the appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) 05-04-2016 and the ld Juri ictional
CIT(A)-2 Jaipur started hearing on 25-01-2018 in the case of the assessee

6
SHANTI LAL BHANDARI VS ITO , WARD 6(1) JAIPUR on the basis of Form 35 (copy filed by the assessee). It is intimated by the ld.AR of the assessee that assessee Shri Shanti Lal Bhandari passed away on 12-07-2017 (Death Certificate filed by the asssessee).Thereafter the appeal was transferred to NFAC to enable the proceedings and the legal heir of the assessee filed the online appeal in 2018 and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal before him. The Bench noted that it is a peculiar case and in such circumstances, the Bench feels that the appeal is to be decided on merit instead of technical latches of late filing the appeal by the legal heir of the assessee. Hence, in such a situation, the Bench restores the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit of the case as the lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
2.5
Order pronounced in the open court on 30 /10/2025. ¼xxu Xkks;y ½

¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½

(Gagan Goyal)

(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30 / 10/2025

*Mishra
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Shri Shanti Lal Bhandari, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -6(1), Jaipur
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1031/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत