TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s called-for by the Assessing Officer. The assessment has been completed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act on 22.04.2021 and made addition of Rs.4,04,38,298/- u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act as unexplained money towards cash withdrawals from Bank and nature and source of deposits against the said cash withdrawals. 3. On being aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). But, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash withdrawals u/sec.69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, T Ram Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset referring to the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal submitted that, the appeal has been filed with delay of 726 days and the assessee has filed a petition along with affidavit and explained the reasons for delay in filing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. For better understanding of the issue, it is relevant to reproduce the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. "AFFIDAVIT 1, SHAIK SHARMILA, D/o MD JEELANI BASHA, aged about residing do here by solemnly affirm and state as under:- 1. I, SHAIK SHARMILA (PAN:- AYAPS3715N) am Managing Partner of M/s STAR ORGANIC FOODS INC (PAN:- ABPF56219P) having its principal place of business at S NO 787, DEVIS PET, INDUKURPET MANDAL, NELLORE-524314, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. The Said firm was assessed to tax for Assessment Year 2018-19 and an assessment order was passed U/s 143(3) on 18.04.2021 where in an addition of Rs. 4,04,38,298/- was made on account of unexplained money U/s 69A on the Act, against which an appeal was filed before CIT(A)/NFAC, which has passed an order on 07.02.2023. 3. The firm has availed loan facilities from Union Bank of India which are outstanding. The firm loan account has become Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and proceedings under SARFAESI ACT were initiated on 02.08.2018. 4. The property which is subject to secur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt invocation of SARFAESI Act, which culminated in sale of property and due to this reason, the assessee was unable to give attention to the income tax matters is, in our considered view, does not come under 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay of 726 days in filing the appeal. It is an admitted legal position of law from the decision of various Courts including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST. Katiji & Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) that, generally, the Courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase 'sufficient cause' used in section 5 of the Limitation Act, in order to condone the delay, to enable the Courts to do substantial justice and apply law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice. The Courts further noted that, in adhering the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' ordinary litigant does not stand benefit by lodging an appeal late and it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal and since, sometimes refused to condone the delay, result in thrown out a meritorious matter. Therefore, it is, in the interest of justice that, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee claims that, it could not file the appeal due to on-going financial distress, legal complications and transitions of operations, the Assessee-Firm was unable to take timely steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. In our considered view, the reason given by the assessee is vague and general in nature and without any substance. The arguments of the assessee that, due to above reasons, it was unable to file appeal before the Tribunal is not acceptable going by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and the return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration on 26.09.2018. The assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer on various occasions in the Financial Year 2019-2020 and from the above, it is undisputedly clear that, assessee was aware of the proceedings going before the Authorities and the assessee need to take care of Income Tax proceedings. Further, when the assessee is having a difficulty, it should be more cautious in taking care of it's litigations, otherwise, it may result in devastating effects in the future. Since, the assessee was aware of the proceedings going before the Authorities, even during the course of proceedi....