TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011-12. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 101 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by partner of the assessee firm. In the application, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) was served to the assessee over email and the same came to the knowledge on 30/06/2022. It is further submitted that the counsel of the assessee at that time advised that the appeal before the Tribunal is required to be filed online on the online portal, which was non-functional due to technical reasons. In December 2022, the assessee changed its counsel, who advised the assessee that the appeal before the Tribunal cannot be filed online and the same is required to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000 on 22/08/2022, i.e. before the expiry of the limitation period. Thus, once the assessee had paid the appeal filing fees within the limitation period, it is difficult to assume that the assessee had no intention to also file the appeal within the limitation period. Therefore, in view of the submissions made in the application, which is also supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period and thus, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the item purchased and duly recorded in the audited books of account of the appellant. Therefore, the action of CIT (Appeals) (NFAC) in restricting the addition to Rs. 3,50,162/- is illegal, invalid and void ab initio. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the appellant has genuinely purchased goods from Mayank Impex making payments through official banking channels and has made corresponding sale of the item alleged to be bogus purchase, which is arbitrary unjustified, illegal and against the facts of the case. 5. The "reasons to believe" must show live link and nexus with the formation of prim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of trading in rough and polished diamonds. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 31/08/2011, declaring a total income of Rs.8,042. The return filed by the assessee was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 27/03/2018, in the case of the assessee. As per the said information, the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus purchases from a concern, viz. M/s Mayank Impex, of Rajendra....