TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal, and therefore, appeal is time barred by limitation. Shri Sarath Rajendraprasad, Director of assessee-company has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay by stating reasons for impugned delay as follows: AFFIDAVIT I, Sarath Rajendraprasad Nair, S/o. Shri Rajendraprasad R. Nair, Director of Ironbuild Systems Pvt. Ltd., V.U. Nagar hereby declare on oath as under: 1. That I am Director in Ironbuild Systems Pvt. Ltd. V.U. Nagar 2. That the appeal has been preferred before the Hon. CIT-Appeals against the order of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle Anand for the AY 2009-10. 3. That the appeal before the Hon. CIT-Appeals had been disposed of by the Hon. CIT-Appeals on 6.3.2014. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by its the then Accounts Manager, Shri Prakash Mannari who was in-charge of the accounts and finance of the company. It is also stated that he left the assessee-company in the month of May, 2016 and left country for better job opportunity. The assessee came to know about the disposal of the appeal when it received recovery notices from the Department. 4. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee-company. The assessee is a private limited. No doubt it has its own Accounts Manager to look after accounts and financial management. Even before the Ld. CIT(A) they had engaged a Chartered Accountant to represent the case on their behalf. The reason stated in their affidavit are not convincing for the fact that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the case also, laxity in filing appeal is more evident in the conduct of the assessee-company before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. In this regard, we observe as follows. 7. A perusal of order of the Ld. CIT(A) makes it very clear that while completing the assessment, the Ld. AO has granted six opportunities to the assessee prove their case. Even before the CIT(A) there were two remand report called for by the Ld. CIT(A) and the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A) are as follows: "4.3.1. Thus it is seen that though the appellant had discharged its initial onus by providing the details of creditors/persons to whom the expenses have been paid, after the investigation made by the AO in the course of whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of purchase, it should have provided the details of materials purchased, evidences regarding their transportation, regarding entry in stock register and utilization in the business of the appellant. Similarly/regarding the other expenses it was incumbent upon the appellant to provide evidence regarding the rendering of services by other parties for whom the payments were made to them. But, right from the beginning, despite being provided with several opportunities during the course of the assessment proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings, the appellant has stuck to its argument that once it has provided full details regarding identity of the parties and since, payments have been made by the account payee cheques, hence, the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ors and the books of accounts of the appellant is concerned, the appellant's explanation have already been reduced above. The appellant has filed explanation regarding amount of Rs. 79,720/- out of the total addition of Rs. 2,14,783/-. The explanations regarding difference in opening balances are acceptable as the corresponding effect has to go to the preceding year. Regarding other explanations filed, the AO is directed to verify the contentions of the appellant and if this are found to be correct, the addition will stand deleted. 4.5. The addition of Rs. 62,063/- for which no explanation has been filed by the appellant is upheld." 8. Thus, enough opportunities were given to the assessee to prove its case both by the AO as ....