KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GURGAON

Shri V.K Mishra, the partner of the assessee M/s. Krishna Enterprises, has affirmed an affidavit on 24.11.2023, notarized in the District Court, Gurgaon. It was contended by the said partner that he had fallen sick from 05.12.2022 to 18.02.2023 and was advised to take bed rest, avoid travelling and prolong standing. In support of such contention made by the partner, a certificate issued by one Doctor Kartarya Shah, dated 18.02.2023 annexed at page No. 47 of the paper book filed before us which speaks that the assessee was under his treatment as on OPD basis starting from 05.12.2022 till the date of issuance of that particular certificate on 18.02.2023. Relevant to mention that, no medical prescription or examination report has been filed in support of illness or certificate issued by the Doctor before us. Apart from that another affidavit affirmed by one Mr. Sanjeev Saini, claimed to be the consultant of M/s. Krishna Enterprises, the appellant before us, affirmed on 24.11.2023 has been filed contending that the order impugned was handed over to him during third week of Feb’ 2023 to arrange consultant for filing appeal. Since he was preoccupied for completion of time bound income tax returns, GST Returns such fact escaped from his mind. At that time, the person responsible engaged by him left the job and the hard copy of the CIT(A) order was not found out and only upon appointing Mr. M.R Sahu, CA that too in the last week of May’ 2023, the copy of the order impugned was downloaded from the e-portal. Thereafter, the fees of filing said appeal has been paid on 10.06.2023 and the appeal was ultimately filed.

Firstly, we do not find any relevance with the affidavit affirmed by the partner of the assessee company narrating his illness during 05.12.2022 to 18.02.2023 and the affidavit filed by the consultant of the assessee company Mr. Sanjeev Saini, expressing his unableness to prefer the appeal in time due to several reasons without any supporting documents. The statement made in the affidavit filed by the appellant partner, if otherwise, to be accepted, the same requires not only the certificate but also the medical prescription, examination report which is neither filed before us nor prayed to be filed. The medical certificate filed by the assessee before us does not inspire any confidence in the absence of Dr. prescription and medical examination reports. In fact, the fact of appeals being barred by limitation has not been brought to our notice by the assessee’s counsel at the date of hearing of the matter probably due to lack of confidence found in the explanations rendered by his client in the affidavit so affirmed in support of delay.

Thus, having regard to “sufficient cause” not been able to be demonstrated by the assessee before us for delay filing of the appeals, particularly in the absence of cogent evidence in support of the affidavit, we are not inclined to accept the plea taken by the assessee for condonation of the delay.

Thus, applications for condonation of delay filed by the assessee in connection to the above appeals are dismissed. The appeals are since not admitted, these are also dismissed.