TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012-2013 at the behest of the appellant/assessee company. 2. The appellants have proposed the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeal solely on technical grounds of delay and defects without adjudicating the same on merits, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal despite sufficient cause being shown, thereby violating the settled principles governing condonation of delay and access to justice? 3. Whether the impugned order of the Learned Tribunal is perverse in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of any independent investigation or material to disprove the documentary evidence furnished by the appellant? 9. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any assessment proceedings and consequential orders can be validly sustained in law against a company which had already been struck off from the Register of Companies, and whether such proceedings are vitiated for lack of legal existence of the assessee?" 3. At the outset, we have asked the learned counsel for the appellants to address us as to whether the questions of law proposed by the appellants are at all substantial questions of law or not. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Learned Income Tax Tribunal erred in law in dismiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gly notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the said Act with the endorsement that "large share premium received". Thereafter, the Assessment Officer vide order dated 23rd March, 2015 had passed an order under Section 143(3) of the said Act determining the total income at Rs. 2,71,24,875/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had held that during the financial year 2011-2012 a sum of Rs. 2,71,00,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credit in the books of account of the appellant/assessee company and the same was included in the total income of the appellant/assessee company for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 under Section 68 of the said Act. 10. In furtherance thereto, penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) had also been initiate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfactory explanation has been offered by the appellant/assessee company. The Appellate Tribunal has also categorically recorded that no application for condonation of delay has been filed. We also find from the impugned order that despite giving several opportunities, the appellant/assessee company has also not rectified the defects in the appeal. We further find that though in the instant stay petition the appellant/assessee company has said that the said order of the Appellate Tribunal was an ex-parte order but the fact remains several applications had been filed by appellant/assessee company seeking adjournment of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. 15. First of such application was filed on 9th December, 2024 by one Kunal Gosw....