AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act with a direction to reframe the assessment by correcting the errors stated in the impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 2. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 788 days. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the said delay and explained the cause of such delay. According to the assessee, all the income-tax related matters were entrusted and being looked after by a tax consultant, Sri B.M. Bajaj and all the papers related to tax matters were in his custody. It was further stated that Sri Bajaj unilaterally disassociated himself from the assessee-company and after his departure various documents including that of ex parte revision order passed by the ld. C.I.T. u/s. 263 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sri Yadav that according to his erroneous advice, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal instead of ld. C.I.T.(A) which caused such delay. On the above facts, the ld. counsel submitted that due to erstwhile tax consultant and ACA of ICAI's failure/omission to look into the matter in proper perspective, the delay was caused. He further submitted that no litigant does stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late when there is demand and penalty imposed. Therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The reasons also affirm that there was no willful negligence or malafides on the part of the assessee. Further, consequences of appropriate action of the erstwhile tax consultant/ACA should not be vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting as under :- "On examination of the assessment records it has been observed that the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 22.12.2006 on a total income 14,54,300/-. A perusal of the assessment record reveal that in Shedule F of the P&L Account the closing stock of finished goods for the assessment year 2000-01 was shown at Rs.1,15,20,868/- but in the P&L Account relevant to the assessment year 2001-02 you have shown opening stock of goods at Rs.1,44,77,950/-. If the return for the A.Y. 01-02 is taken to be correct then the closing stock for the A.Y. 2000-01 should have been Rs.1,44,77,950 and not Rs.1,15,20,868/- as shown by you in the return for the A.Y. 2000-01. This resulted in an under assessment of Rs.29,57....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under consideration was shown at lesser value, which was based on unfounded premises without considering the audited books of accounts of the assessee. He further submitted that closing stock of a year becomes opening stock of the next year. As the ld. A.O. could not find any discrepancy in the closing stock of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration, the allegation of the ld. C.I.T. of alleged under valuation of closing stock was a futility in itself. Further, it is settled that the error envisaged by sec. 263 of the Act is not one which depends on contingency or guess work, but it should be actually an error either of fact or of law. Reliance was placed on CIT vs. Trustees of Anupam Charitable Trust [167 ITR 129 (Raj)] a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted out any irregularity or defect in the accounts maintained for the assessment year under consideration which, according to him, the ld. A.O. failed to apply his mind in course of assessment proceedings. However, at the same time, we observe that only once the case was fixed for hearing on 16/5/2008 and in response the assessee filed a petition dated 15/5/2008 seeking adjournment of the hearing on the ground of illness of the person conversant with the matter. The ld. C.I.T. rejecting such petition for want of medical certificate passed ex parte order u/s. 263 of the Act and sent the assessment back to the ld. A.O. for doing afresh. The ld. C.I.T. in support of his action has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases ....