SAHARA TRADECOMM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 114 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay on the ground that its authorised representative Shri Rajesh Duggar, FCA had suffered with serious injury during the relevant period and since he had to undergo medical brain surgery, the appeal could not be completed and filed before the Tribunal in time. Keeping in view this reason given by the assessee, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the

The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,570/-. In the profit and loss account filed along with the said return a sum of Rs. 24,10,50,000/- was credited by the assessee as contractual income while a sum of Rs. 24,09,00,000/- was debited as subcontract expenses. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not furnish any details or documents to support and substantiate its claim on account of contractual income or subcontract expenses and admitted that it had provided bogus bills to M/s. PACL India Ltd. without executing in sort of work/contract. It was also stated by the assessee that a commission income @0.10% of the amount of contractual income was earned by it for the bogus bills provided. No evidence whatsoever however could be produced by the assessee to support and substantiate its claim that commission only @0.10% was earned on the bogus bills. The AO, therefore, estimated the commission income earned by the assessee by applying the rate of 0.50% and made an addition of Rs. 12,05,250/- to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 28.03.2014.

Against the order passed by the AO under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the delay of only 6 days in filing its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was explained by the assessee by submitting that its directors were not available at the relevant time in the office due to some unavoidable circumstances and since the appeal papers could not be signed in time, there was a delay in filing the appeal. In my opinion, this explanation offered by the assessee constituted a sufficient cause for the delay of 6 days on the part of the assessee in filing its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(a) was not justified in refusing to condone the said delay for want of any supporting evidence. It is well settled that the expression “sufficient cause” is to be construed liberally in order to further the cause of substantial justice and it is not correct to refuse to condone the delay of only 6 days for which plausible explanation

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 8th June, 2018.