2025 (3) TMI 1979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order passed by Assessing Officer (in short 'AO') u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 17.12.2018. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. The Ld. AO has erred in law and facts in reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Hence all the proceedings are illegal and additions made due to the assessment is liable to be deleted. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 1,46,00,000/- in respect of on account of bogus purchase transaction. In view of the facts and merits of the case, the addition made by Ld. AO is liable to be deleted. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Appellant craves l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... validly reopened the case by following due procedure. He has also dismissed the appeal on merit by stating that no new evidence was produced by the appellant during appellate proceeding so as to deviate from the findings of AO. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal, which is late by 74 days. The assessee has admitted at column No.11 of Form-36 that there is delay of filing of appeal. Shri Prafulchandra Ishverlal Patel, Director of assessee-company has filed an affidavit by stating that the order of CIT(A) was passed on 16.10.023 and it was served the next day through on-line portal. However, due to some events which took place in the meantime, he could not present the case in due time befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive evidence. In fact, none attended on the dates of hearing before us to adduce any evidence in support of the general remarks for the delay stated by the appellant in the affidavit. Therefore, the delay is not condoned and the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5.1 The appeal is also liable for dismissal due to non-prosecution by the appellant. As stated earlier, hearings were posted on three occasions, i.e., 10.12.2024, 19.02.2025 and 13.03.2025. None appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed. It is, therefore, clear that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India and Commission of Central Excise....