NAVAB SINGH,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(5), GHAZIABAD

O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (A.M): This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dated 07.11.2022 and pertains to A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeals read as under:-

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts, in upholding the order of the learned assessing officer and not giving him sufficient opportunity and further ignoring that the appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause to represent his case before the First Appellate Authority and so as to make a plea that the impugned assessment completed under section 144/147 of the Act was without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, improper and defying the principle of natural justice to the petitioner: 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts, in confirming the additions of Rs.2200000 made by the learned assessing officer in the impugned assessment order, based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures alone and without bringing on record any material evidence whatsoever and also without looking into the facts of the case. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts, in wrongly charging interest under section 234A amounting to Rs.458803. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi erred in law and on facts, in wrongly charging interest under section 234B amounting to Rs.485171.

2. At the outset it is noted that assessment order was passed u/s. 144 in this case. The Ld. CIT(A) has also passed ex-parte order as no representation was done on behalf of the assessee before him. I also note that there is a delay of 172 days in filing the appeal. However, the assessee has given reasonable cause for the delay, that he is of old age and didn't have the necessary support to take care of the Income Tax matters. Upon careful consideration, I find that the reasonable cause for the delay attributed by the assessee is not convincing, hence the appeal is dismissed being time barred.