TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for condonation of delay as the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause in filing the appeals in time. 2. We have heard this case on a preliminary issue, which is similar for all the A.Ys. The grounds in question read as follows. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in:- 1. Declining to allow additional ground of appeal contesting the assessment framed as illegal, void ab-initio and without jurisdiction due to the following reasons. (a) That according to CIT(A) it was taken too late in the proceedings, even though, the fact is that there is no time limit under the Rules to file an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d hence, search warrant was in the joint name of the appellant and Senior Citizens Home Complex Welfare Society. 5. Thereafter at para 6.1 the finding reads as follows. "6.1. The additional ground has been taken too late during the appellate proceedings and, therefore, I am not satisfied that omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful or unreasonable. The appellant is therefore, not allowed to go into the ground taken as additional ground." 6. Mr.Sampath argues that the Panchnama has been drawn up in 2 names and hence the warrant would have been on joint names and the assessee is entitled to take the additional ground, by relying on the propositions of law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court on the issue. He su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, which goes into the root of the matter and adjudicated the same. The additional ground cannot be rejected when it is a purely legal ground and when the facts are on record. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India (supra) has clear on the matter. Ground should not have been rejected on the ground of delay, as it was taken before disposal of the appeal by the Ld.CIT(A). The case laws relied upon by the Ld.CIT., D.R. are not relevant to the issue on hand. Thus we direct the CIT(A) to admit this additional ground and adjudicate the same on merits. In view of the above we set aside ITA 3858/Del/11 for the A.Y. 2003-04, ITA 3859/Del/11 for the A.Y. 2004-05 and ITA 3860/Del/11 for the A.Y. 2005-06. As we have s....