SAKAMBHARI PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALSANA, SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short to as “Ld. NFAC”]/Ld. CIT(A) dated 06.12.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed under section 143(3) of Income-Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 26.11.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Private Limited Company and filed its return of income for assessment year 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.34,91,080/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order made disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act of PF and ESI of employees contribution, which was deposited after due date of prescribed under statutory provision of PF/ESI scheme. On appeal before NFAC/ ld.CIT(A) the action Assessing Officer was upheld. The NFAC/ ld.CIT(A) also held that the subject-matter under consideration is covered by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Transport Corporation Vs. CIT 41 Taxmann.com (A.Y 17-18) Sakambhari Processors Pvt.Ltd 100 (Guj). Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal.

On perusal of record, it shows that present appeal is barred by fifty-two day the prescribed period of limitation for filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submits that CIT(A) passed the order on 06.12.2021 and present appeal was filed on 28.03.2022. Thus, there is delay of fifty-two days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition(C) No.3 of 2020 has already allowed the period of limitation till 01.03.2022 and further 90 days period was granted to file appeal before various courts. Thus, the entire period of delay is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court that there was no intimation or deliberate in filing of appeal. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Senior departmental representative (Sr-DR) for the Revenue submits that the Bench may take decision in accordance with law. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties on the plea of condonation of delay and find that the assessee has 3