2013 (5) TMI 533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CIT (A)-8, Mumbai dated 29.7.2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- "1. The CIT (A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and dismissing the same as barred by limitation. 2. The CIT (A) erred in observing that delay in filing the appeal has occurred as the appellant was non-vigilant. He failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed a rectification application before the Assessing Officer. He was pursuing with the same and was hopeful that the said application will be allowed. 3. The CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO was not justified in treating the gain of Rs. 1,79,025/- as short term capital gain. He failed to appreciate that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Officer levied the penalty u/s 272(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the additions made by the AO. However, considering the fact that the Assessing Officer did not attend to the rectification application of the assessee dated 7.5.2009, even till date. The issues raised in that rectification application, thus, not finalized by the AO. In the above factual matrix of the case, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the assessee would not have filed appeal before the CIT (A), if the issues being identical to the ones raised in Form No.35 are adjudicated by the AO. Therefore, the application made by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act, which has not been attended was because of belated filing of the appeal before the CIT (A). Further, Ld Counsel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rits of the issues raised before him. On appreciating the facts available before us, it is noticed that the assessee actually filed an application u/s 154 in the month of May, 2009 and the issues are common which remain un-adjudicated by the AO or the CIT (A) as on date. Considering the fact that the assessee moved an application for rectification, it cannot be inferred that the assessee is not vigilant about his rights. Therefore, we dismissed the allegation of the CIT (A) in this regard. It is also noticed that AO has not so far adjudicated the said rectification and it is also noticed that the assessee is left with pending issues despite they are raised before the AO / CIT (A) through different proceedings. It is also a fact that the ass....