DILIP MANKICHAND NAHAR,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), JALNA

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07-12-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12.

At the outset, I note that the present appeal was filed with a delay of 807 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 06-03-2019 and also latest being as additional affidavit dated 03-08-2022 to condone the said delay by explaining reasons. On perusal of the notarized affidavit dated 06-03-2019, I note that the assessee stated that he received order dated 07-12-2015 passed by the CIT(A) on 09-12-2015 and the time limit for filing the appeal before this Tribunal being 60 days expires on 09-12-2015. The assessee states that his Consultant advised him not to file any further appeal before the Tribunal and subsequently, he was properly advised by the experts to file the appeal. The present appeal was filed with a delay of 807 days taking into account the relevant law w.e.f. 01-04-2006 relating to speculative transaction. I find that except the reason of advice of Consultant, there was no valid reason given by the assessee which really prevented in filing the appeal in time before this Tribunal. Further, on perusal of the additional notarized affidavit dated 03-08-2022, I note that the assessee reiterated the same explanation which was stated in the earlier notarized affidavit as discussed above. I note that in the second notarized affidavit also the assessee did not show any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 807 days except repeating the same that the appeal was not filed on the basis of advice of his Consultant. Upon hearing the Ld. AR and Ld. DR along with the contents in both the affidavits, I am of the opinion that the assessee failed to make out a sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time before this Tribunal. The reason explained by the assessee in both the notarized affidavits that the appeal was not filed on the advice of his Consultant does not constitute a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 807 days, thus the reasons stated in both the notarized affidavits are not acceptable and consequently, the delay of 807 days is not condoned.

In view of my decision in not condoning the delay of 807 days, the issues raised in appeal by the assessee becomes infrucutous and are dismissed as such.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.