SHREE SHYAM ENTERPRISES,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. Addl. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh dated 15-01-2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts of case in not admitting appeal owing to delay in filing of Form 35 without appreciating the sufficient cause for delay put by the appellant.

2. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts of case in not adjudicating the merit of the case.

3. That the ld. CIT(A) ought to have addition of Rs.15,05,870/- by the CPC u/s 143(1) to be beyond jurisdiction and judicial precedents on the issue.’’ 2 SHREE SHYAM ENTEPRISES VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR 2.1 At the very outset of the hearing, the Bench noticed from the record that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was fixed for hearing on 15-04-2024. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 17-04-2024 for arguments. However, on 17-04-2024, none appeared when the case was called out for hearing. While deprecating the conduct of the assessee, the adjournment application placed on record was dismissed by the Bench. Since the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Department was ready for arguments, therefore, the Bench proceeded to dispose off the case on merit. 2.2 The Bench noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by ld. Addl. CIT(A) as the same was not filed within the limitation and there was delay 286 days and only reasons mentioned by the assessee before ld. Addl. CIT(A) was that partners of the assessee are non tech savvy and does not check mail frequently. In this regard, the ld. Addl. CIT(A) has passed a detailed order containing various juridical pronouncements. The Bench has meticulously gone through the findings of the ld. Addl. CIT(A). The relevant narration as made by ld. Addl. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- ‘’3. In view of the above discussion and legal position, the delay of 255 days in filing of appeal is not condone as no ‘’sufficient casue’’ has been shown u/s 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax , 1961 r.w.s. of Limitation Act and hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly is hereby rejected.

4. In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.