PRATIK SHAH, BHILAI,DURG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 224/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pratik Shah, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and estimated gross profit on other deposits. The Income Tax Officer had initially made these additions under best judgment assessment due to non-compliance by Shah in responding to notices. The tribunal dismissed Shah's appeal due to a significant delay in filing, citing negligence and lack of sufficient cause for the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299004 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT, Jaspal Singh Hora (HUF) Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah, Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, M/s BPS Infrastructure Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH SETHIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 250; 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM (ITA No. 224/RPR/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Pratik Shah, Qtr. No. 52, R S S Market, Opposite Bank of India, Post Powerhouse, Bhilai 490011, CG V S ITO, Ward-2(1), Civic Center, Bhilai, CG PAN: CDGPS8516L (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The Captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [for short, “Ld. CIT(A)”], u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “The Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, dated 12.01.2024. Resulted, from the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Bhilai (for short, “The Ld. AO”), U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, dated 19.12.2019. 2 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are extracted as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without proper service of the notice as per provisions of the Act and without following the principles of natural justice. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding order of learned Assessing Officer making addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- being cash deposits made in Bank Account during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite accepting the fact that Appellant is engaged in the business of petrol pump operations and separately estimating profit by applying comparable cases engaged in petrol pump operations overlooking the fact that petrol pump operators were allowed to accept cash in Specified Bank Notes during demonetization period. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,02,431/- made by estimating G.P. @2.82% of the gross receipts. 4. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual, who had not filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18. As per statement of financial transaction retrieve from the system, it is noticed by the department that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 48,18,500/- in his A/c No. 15560210002414 maintained with the United Commercial Bank of India, 3 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai Bhilai, during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment, notice u/s 142(1) was issued and served upon the assessee. However, the assessee failed to furnish ROI in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Further, notices were issued to the assessee on regular intervals as emanating from the assessment order i.e., on 02.07.2019, 05.07.2019 and 16.09.2019. Later on, through an email dated 20.09.2019 the assessee has made a request for some time due to medical emergency, and the time was granted. But the assessee remains unresponsive, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 20.11.2019, proposing the addition u/s 69A for SBN deposited by the assessee. However, no compliance was made by the assessee again. Ld. AO, further in order to gather the information have initiated action u/s 133(6), have collected the information from the concerned bank and have completed the assessment under best judgment assessment following the manner provided u/s 144(1) of the Act. Another addition was made qua the credit entries in the bank accounts of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,78,16,711/- on which a GP rate 2.82% was applied taking the average of other 3 assessees in the same trade in which the assessee in present case was engaged and an addition of Rs. 5,02,431/- was made. The assessment u/s 144 was culminated with addition of Rs. 50,02,931/-. 4 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 4. An appeal was preferred Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid order of Ld. AO, wherein again the conduct of assessee was found to be of a persistent non-complaint, as discernible from the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was not responsive on 8 occasions, as under: S. No. Date of hearing notice Date of hearing fixed Response of the appellant Remarks 1 07/01/2021 11/01/2021 No Response Hearing notice was delivered on the available email address 2 06/01/2022 14/01/2022 No Response -do- 3 03/08/2023 11/08/2023 20/08/2023 (adjournment) -do- 4 22/08/2023 01/09/2023 No Response -do- 5 08/09/2023 18/09/2023 No Response -do- 6 02/11/2023 13/11/2023 No Response -do- 7 30/11/2023 12/12/2023 No Response -do- 8 20/12/2023 29/12/2023 No Response -do- 5. In view of aforesaid careless, non-attentive and lackadaisical conduct of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A), describing his decision as under : 5 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 6. Decision on merits of the Case: - Though I have dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution by the Appellant, the grounds raised by the Appellant are adjudicated on merits as under: - 6.1 In the grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2 the appellant has contended that all the credits appearing in the bank accounts are part of turnover and cash deposited during demonetization period is out of sale of petrol and not unexplained cash. I find from the assessment order that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 48,00,500/- in bank account during demonetization period but the return of income for AY 2017-18 was not filed. Therefore, AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) requesting the appellant to file the return of income by 31/03/2018, however again there was no response from the appellant. The subsequent notices issue u/s 142(1) were also not responded by the appellant. Therefore, the AO had collected the information from banks u/s 133(6) of the act which revealed that there were total credits of Rs. 2,23,17,211/- during FY 2016-17 including cash deposits of Rs. 48,38,500/- during demonetization period. Considering the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant the AO had issued show cause notice proposing to complete the assessment u/s 144, however again there appellant failed to submit any reply/explanation. Therefore the AO treated the cash deposited during demonetization period in SBN of Rs. 45,00,500/- as unexplained money and made addition of Rs. 45,00,500/-. Regarding other credits of Rs. 1,75,89,904/-, the estimated the GP at the rate of 2.82% on the basis of average GP of last 3 years shown by 3 third parties engaged in the similar line of business that of the appellant and made the addition of Rs. 5,02,431/-. Thus total income was determined at Rs. 50,02,930/- u/s 144 rws 115BBE of the Act. During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant failed to submit the ground wise written submission with supporting evidences in spite giving 8 opportunities of being heard. The appellant vide office letter dated 20/12/2023 was clearly informed that this is FINAL 6 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai OPPORTUNITY given for submission of the ground wise written submission and if the appellant fails to comply, the appeal would be decided on merits of the case and submissions filed so far. However the appellant did not file any response till the date. Since the appellant failed to controvert the action of the AO with supporting evidences, the additions made by the AO are confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed. 6. In ground No. 3, the appellant has contended that if anything is left then assessee has right to modify, addition or deletion in this appeal,. However this option is not exercised by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. Therefore the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), the matter is being carried before us for our consideration. 7. At the very threshold of the hearing, it is pointed out by the registry that the appeal in the present case is barred by limitation, as the same is filed with a delay of 66 days after the stipulated date as mandated under the law. In order to explain the delay, Ld. Authorized Representative Yogesh Sethia, CA (in short “Ld. AR”) submitted before us an application seeking condonation of delay and affidavit of the assessee, which for the sake of completeness of information are extracted as under: 7 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 8 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 9 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 10 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 8. Ld. AR also furnished before us a written synopsis explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal, extracted as under: 11 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 12 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 13 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 14 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 15 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 9. Based on aforesaid submission, Ld. AR adduced that the delay in filing of appeal was not due to any deliberate laps or negligence, but due to circumstances beyond the appellants control and hence the delay in filing of appeal may be condoned. 10. Contradicting the aforesaid contentions, the Ld. AR, Ld. Sr. DR, Dr. Priyanka Patel, representing the revenue, have submitted that the contentions raised by the assessee are unjustified. It was the submission that the conduct of the assessee was careless and negligent before the Ld. AO as well as before the first appellate authority, which stay continued while filing the appeal before the tribunal also. Assessee’s plea through the request for condonation and synopsis are unjustified, does not support the contention that the reason for delay are beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, the delay involved in present case is strongly opposed by the Ld. Sr. DR and requested to dismiss the case on this count itself. It is further submitted that assessee’s callous approach cannot be considered as a plausible defense towards jumping the prescribed time of limitation provided by the law. Accordingly, the condonation of delay requested by the assessee is highly objectionable and should not be permitted. 16 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR. Admittedly, the delay in filing of appeal was worked out for 66 days by the registry of the tribunal. It is the contention by the Ld. AR, as per the synopsis that the challan for appeal was deposited on 08.05.2024 and the appeal was filed on 17.05.2024, in between 9 days times was taken by the counsel of the assessee to prepare and file the appeal, therefore, the effective delay is only 57 days, we may herein observe that the prescribed time of filing the appeal includes all such arrangements and the appeal as per provisions of section 253(3) has to be filed within 60 days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee, therefore, the contention of the assessee to reduce the time consumed by the counsel by the assessee has no substance to be accepted. As the assessee in present case is found to be negligent before both the revenue authorities, have taken the tax proceedings very casually, who had not complied with the notices by the revenue authorities when the opportunities were provided. The contentions raised by Ld. AR therefore, does not hold good so as to consider the delay involved in present case on account of reasons due to which the assessee was prevented to file the appeal in the prescribed time. The excuse of unawareness of law cannot be allowed as a sufficient cause. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the request for 17 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai condonation of delay by the assessee being bereft of substance, having no plausible explanation or sufficient cause towards the circumstances beyond the control of assessee, which prevented the assessee to file the appeal within stipulated period of limitation provided under the law, cannot permit for the condonation of delay. 12. On this aspect, we place reliance on the order of coordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No.6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y.1999-2000, dated 23.03.2020, had held that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained and inordinate delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, then, the Jaspal Singh Hora (HUF) Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA No. 183/RPR/2022 discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. Reverting to the facts of the present case, as observed by us hereinabove, as the assessee had not only remained negligent regarding the process of law before the revenue authorities, had filed the appeal before us after 66 days and had also failed to come forth with any plausible explanation as regards the reasons leading to the said delay, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and 18 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai condone the same. Also, we may observe at this juncture that the law of limitation has to be construed strictly as it has an effect of vesting with one and taking away the right from the other party. The delay in filing of the appeals cannot be condoned in a mechanical or a routine manner since that would undoubtedly jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 13. We may herein observe that in the case of state of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. the expression “sufficient cause” will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as observed by us hereinabove, as the assessee appellant in the present case had not come forth with any cogent explanation elaborating the acceptable reasons leading to the delay in filing the present appeal, and had adopted a lackadaisical approach, therefore, there can be no reason to condone the delay of 66 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. 19 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 14. Also, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any substantial clarification to support the application for condonation elaborating in the backdrop of sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, we decline to condone the same and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. 15. Our aforesaid view is squarely covered by the orders of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Tax Case No. 86 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024. Wherein the observations of the Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under: \"9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the documents available on record, it transpires that as per the information obtained from the Annual Information Return, it was observed by the AO that though the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 34,67,700/- in his savings bank account during the year under consideration but had not filed his return of income. As the assessee failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the source of the aforesaid cash deposits, the AO reopened his case under Section 147 of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, though the AO had 20 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai issued several notices to the assessee but he did not comply with the same. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act dated 16.12.2018, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.34,67,700/- after treating the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.34,67,700/- as the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As the assessee had failed to participate in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering material available on record. 11. Though the AO had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to represent his case, it was the assessee who, for reasons best known to him, despite being well informed about the ongoing assessment proceedings, had not only failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the said proceedings. Also, the assessee had failed to file any reply to the notices that were served on him during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the A.O., in the absence of any return of income and also any explanation forthcoming about the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, who had chosen to lie low and neither participate in the assessment proceedings nor furnished any reply to the notices that were issued to him, thus, was constrained to treat the cash deposits of Rs.34,67,700/-(supra) as the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, and framed the best judgment assessment vide his order under Sections 144/147 of the Act vide its order dated 16.12.2018. Even before the CIT(Appeals), the conduct of the assessee was no better than that he had adopted during the assessment proceedings. Although the CIT(Appeals) afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee to put up his case on merits before him but he had once again adopted an evasive approach and on no occasion, participated in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) has given proper opportunity to the assessee to participate in the hearing. Four notices were issued to the assessee informing the assessee about the date of hearing but the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(Appeals) taking notice of the fact that the assessee had adopted an evasive approach and, despite being well informed, had 21 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai not only chosen not to participate in the proceedings before him but also, despite sufficient opportunities, had not placed on record any submissions whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise to substantiate his claim that the A.O had erred in treating the cash deposit of Rs.34,67,700/- in his bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, thus, upheld the order passed by the AO under Sections 144/147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2018. 12. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the conduct of the assessee remains the same as was there before the learned CIT(A) and the A.O. The appeal filed by the assessee before the learned ITAT involves a delay of 166 days. On a careful perusal of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal, the reason that the bonafides of the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee cannot be gathered from the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. The facts that can be gathered from the aforesaid application of the assessee are, viz. (i) the assessment order was passed by the A.O on 16.12.2018 and was issued on 29.12.2018 without any reasons for keeping the same with him; (ii) reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act were not supplied to the assessee by the A.O; and (iii) appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) vide an exparte order dated 29.03.2023 etc. 13. Under section 69A of the Act, what is provided is that if an assessee is found to be the owner of any money, jewellery or any other valuable articles and such money is not recorded in the books of account and fails to offer any explanation about the nature and source thereof or in case any such explanation, if offered, is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO, then it may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Ultimately, therefore, it would be dependent on the nature of the explanation submitted by the assessee and the satisfaction of the AO about the acceptability thereof, which is the sine qua non for invoking the provisions contained in section 69A of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has failed to file his return of income but had also evaded his participation in the proceedings. In absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee as regards the delay in filing of the appeal, his request for 22 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai condonation of the same, when read in the backdrop of his conduct before the authorities below cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it. There is no substance in the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the appeal was due to bonafide reasons, as the same clearly smacks of the lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the appeal read with the conduct of the assessee appellant before the AO and the CIT(Appeals), the request of the assessee for condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal does not merit acceptance. 14. The learned ITAT, vide paragraph 12 has observed that “In fact, if I condone the delay involved in the present case where the assessee had not even participated in the proceedings either before the A.O or CIT (Appeals), then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for the times to come. ...” 15. As has been rightly relied on by the learned ITAT that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah, reported in 1972 AIR SC 749, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay. The expression “sufficient cause” will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The action which can be condoned by the Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. However, as the assessee appellant in the present case is habitually acting in defiance of law, where he had not only delayed in filing of the present appeal but also had adopted a lackadaisical approach and not participated in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, there can be no reason to allow his application and condone the substantial delay of 166 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal. Now, when in the present appeal the appellant / assessee had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, we hereby dismiss the present appeal upholding the reasons assigned by the learned ITAT. 16. Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed.\" 23 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai 16. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in its order passed in the case of M/s BPS Infrastructure Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, Tax Case No, 87 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024, after relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah, reported in 1972 AIR SC 749 and Ramlal, Motilal, and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd reported in AITR (1962) 361 (SC), had approved the order of the Tribunal which had declined to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal. 17. We, thus, in light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Tax Case No. 86 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024, and M/s BPS Infrastructure Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur, Tax Case No, 87 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024, respectfully following guiding principle accorded by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, in absence of any justifiable reason or sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal in the present case, reject the condonation request of the assessee, wherein the assessee/ appellant have failed to come forth with any substantial clarification to support the application for condonation, elaborating in the backdrop of sufficient reasons that would justify condonation of the delay of 66 days involved in preferring of the captioned appeal, therefore, we decline to condone the same and, thus, 24 ITA No. 224/RPR/2024 Pratik Shah vs Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai without adverting to the merits of the case, dismiss appeal of the aforesaid assessee as barred by limitation. 18. In the result, the aforesaid appeal of the assessee in ITA No.244/RPR/2024 is dismissed as not maintainable in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/10/2024. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 25/10/2024 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : // स×याǒपत Ĥित True copy // आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretory) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- Pratik Shah, Bhilai, Durg 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- ITO- 2(1), Bhilai 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. "