TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... action of the ld. AO in not allowing the set off of carried forward loss of Rs.11,97,120/-. 5. That the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law & facts in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs made by the ld. AO on account of grant-in-aid received by Bhiwani branch of the assessee. The amount has already been shown income in the books in financial year 2005-06 relevant to assessment year 2006-07." The sixth ground is residuary in nature and no additional ground was taken in pursuance of this ground. 2. The appeal is admittedly barred by limitation and the delay is of 178 days. An application dated 09.03.2010 praying for condonation of delayhas been filed. It is mentioned therein that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) was received on 17.07.2009. This order was handed over to Shri Shyam Lal Gupta, advocate, for preparing and filing appeal before the Tribunal. This order was misplaced by the counsel because of his continuous ill-health, thus, the appeal was not filed by him. The assessee came to know about this omission because of communication received from the A.O about concealment proceedings. Thereafter, the assessee contacted the counsel and found that the appeal had not been fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the enquiry in regard to the registration of the Trust was entrusted to the ACIT by the Commissioner of Income-tax and accordingly. the request was made to the concerned officer for condonation of the delay in filing of application u/s 12A. Subsequently application was also filed with the Commissioner of Income-tax. All this was done at the instance and advice of the Advocate of the assessee. In this case. the Advocate of the assessee Shri V.K Sachdeva has affirmed to have wrongly advised the assessee about the course of action to be taken in regard to the Registration Certificate issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The bona fides of the assessee are established by the fact that right from 30.10.2001, the assessee has been communicating with the Revenue Authorities to grant registration from the date of creation of the Trust. It is undisputed fact that the assessee did not receive proper advice for taking appropriate action in regard to the condonation of delay in filing of the application for registration u/s 12A. So however, as pointed earlier, bona fides of the assessee are established from the very fact that several communications referred to elsewhere in this order were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was drawn to the CBDT Circular. No.395 dated 24.9.1984 which exempts the income of the Association engaged in promotion of sports . The assessee Association is also registered with BCCI, which is the parent body of the Association and all the contributions particularly being of the Association are received from the BCCI The Association has also been granted exemption u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The evidence in this regard is placed on the Paper Book. The appellant is also a Society registered with the Registrar of Societies, Kangra. Taking all this facts into consideration and in the light of the decided cases elsewhere in this order and in particular the affidavit of Shri V.K.Sachdeva, Advocate, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be served by condoning the delay in filing of he appeal by the assessee. We accordingly, condone the delay of 524 days and entertain the appeal of the assessee." 2.1 In reply, the ld. CIT, DR submitted that Shri Shyam Lal Gupta never appeared before any of the lower authorities. Shri Raghav Gupta, advocate, had appeared before the AO. Shri Raghav Gupta along with Shri R.K. Bhatia attended before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thus, illn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. There is no explanation for this omission. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit also show that there was delay at every stage and the only mention made is regarding the dates of the receipt of file and the decision taken. There is no explanation as to why such delay had occurred. The persons concerned are well aware of the issues and existence of the limitation. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, the delay cannot be condoned mechanically just because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party. Although when there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide, a liberal approach has to be adopted but the department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. Thus, the delay was not condoned. We are of the view that the facts of this case are distinguishable. The main point of distinction is that the Office of Chief Post Master General did not furnish sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. As against the aforesaid, the delay in this case has been explained by way of the affidavit of Shyam Lal Gupta, an advocate. Since t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been purchased and some further credits have been made in this account, leading to credit balance of Rs.18,08,312/- as on 31.03.2004. However, this evidence has been filed before us as additional evidence. In respect to administrative expenses, our attention is drawn to the ledger account which shows that there is no transaction and the amount represents opening balance. This is also an additional evidence before us. In regard to set off of brought forward loss, it is submitted that the same could have been rectified u/s 154 as it is axiomatic that only that much of loss brought forward from earlier years can be allowed which is determined in the assessment of that year. In respect of grant-in-aid of Rs.5.00 lakh, it is submitted that the amount was received in this year and duly shown in schedule-C to the accounts. In other words, the case of the ld. counsel is that all the details were available on the record of the AO, the assessee had earlier been completed u/s 143(3) on 05.12.2006, and nothing new came to the notice of the AO. Therefore, it is only a case of change of opinion. 4.3 In order to support the case, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the word "opinion" in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No.549 dated 31st October, 1989, ([1990] 182 ITR (St.) 1, 29) which reads as follows: "7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression `reason to believe' in Section 147.-A number of representations were received against the omission of the words `reason to believe' from Section 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, `reason to believe' had been explained in a number of court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended section 147 to reintr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to under-assessment of income by an amount of Rs. 35,68,046/-. Based upon these four reasons, it was recorded that the aforesaid income has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.10.2007. This notice has been issued and served within a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. Therefore, proviso to section 147 is not applicable. It is also a matter of fact that details in respect of all these points were not on the record of the AO. No information flowed to him from any other quarter nor there was any change in law in respect of any of the matter. The question is-whether, the AO is justified in reopening the assessment. 5.1 The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the corresponding ground by mentioning that no submission was made on these grounds and, thus, the grounds are treated as not pressed. Admittedly, no submission was made in respect of reopening the assessment before him. However, the case of the ld. counsel is that even in absence of any submission, the ground should have been decided on merits depending upon the facts available on record. The reasons were available before him, which should have been examined for arriving at a proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount was not offered for taxation. No reason was adduced before the AO in support thereof. Looking to the aforesaid, we are of the view that the facts in regard to the first two items were not available on record and facts in respect of other two items were not brought to the notice of the AO at the time of assessment. In such a situation, we are of the view that the decision in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (supra) is applicable. Thus, the AO was justified in reopening the assessment. 6. We now proceed with the application of the assessee dated 11.03.2012 for entertaining additional evidence. Through this application, the assessee seeks to bring following additional evidence on record:- (i) Copy of the account designated as "provision for milk can repair" from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2005; (ii) Copy of account designated "old advance to staff"; (iii) Copy of account of "revolving fund" from 01.06.2002 and 31.03.2005; and (iv) Copy of account of "revolving fund" for Bhiwani for assessment year 2005-06 along with copy of account of "MCC expenses", Bhiwani for assessment year 2006-07. 6.1 It is mentioned that the assessee was heavily dependent on Shri Shyam Lal Gupta, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the documents were necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits. No question of law arises from such an order. In the case of CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works (2011) 336 ITR 555 (P & H), one of the questions was-whether, the Tribunal is right in law in not taking into account additional evidence? The Hon'ble Court mentioned that the report of forensic science laboratory was a relevant material and so was the affidavit dated 27.12.2004 of the searched person. The additional evidence was necessary for just decision of the matter. At best, the deponent could be produced for cross-examination. The additional evidence can be allowed in the interest of justice if the same is authentic and is necessary for decision of the issue raised in the appeal. Thefore, it has been held that the Tribunal was not justified in declining to consider the additional evidence. The ld. CIT, DR opposed the admission of additional evidence on the ground that the assessee has been a habitual defaulter in the matter. The evidence was not produced before the AO or the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, it is argued that the evidence may not be entertained. 7. We have considered the....