2010 (11) TMI 686

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder is required to be sent to Departmental Representative, Tribunal and concerned CIT. No such copy was dispatched to either of them at Jaipur. But it appears to have been sent to their counter parts at Chandigarh, whereas the matter was transferred to Chandigarh bench for certain other reasons, though it actually did not have any jurisdiction over the dispute. We are satisfied that appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing appeal within limitation. Delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The appeals are heard on merits. 2. These two income-tax appeals have been filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short-the Act) against the common jud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 148 was passed on 31-3-2003 at Rs. 15,12,97,910. 4. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act and applied the net profit rate of 3 per cent on the turnover of Jaipur Branch and Delhi Branch. Appeal preferred by assessee thereagainst before the CIT(A) was dismissed on 27-10-2003, which upheld the reopening of assessment with some reliefs on merits. The assessee and revenue both filed appeals before the Tribunal and ultimately the matter came to be transferred to Tribunal, Chandigarh, which decided the appeals by the common order which is impugned in the present appeals. 5. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Assessing Officer categorically mentioned ....