TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have condoned the alleged delay in filing the appeal, which appeal had been filed on 30.08.2010 against the order of assessment dated 27.09.2006, which order was served, without notice of demand under section 156 of the Act on assessee on 21.11.2006, despite the fact that, it had not been disputed that no Notice of demand had been served on assessee in respect of the said order of assessment and time to file an appeal commences with the service of notice of demand and no valid appeal could be filed without a notice Of) demand. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the addition made to income of Rs. Rs. 2,33,91,260/- otherwise is untenable in law as had been held by Hon'ble ITA T and Hon'ble HC for the preceding years where similar additions made have been deleted, and as such the addition made of Rs. 2,33,91,260/- as interest income ought to have been deleted . " 2. Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal by 47 months. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, submitted that : a) The assesee is a PSU Company; b) It was not served with a notice of demand and hence, it did not filed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bonafide belief that the appeal can be filed, only on receipt of the demand notice and such bonafide belief was due to a professional opinion and hence there is reasonable cause for condonation of delay. He relied on the following case laws :- 1. Surya General Traders vs. Commercial Tax Officer of High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2. Church of our lady of Grace vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 34 SOT 315 (Mum.) 3. M/s. Mahalakshmi Real Estates vs. Income-tax Officer (ITA No. 991/Hyd/2009) 4. Wellworth Shares and stock broking Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 991/Hyd/2009) 5. Dinesh Nagindas vs. CIT (2005) 273 ITR 229 6. Auto Centre vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2005) 278 ITR 291 (All) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the bench and the entire base on which the assessee rested its case is demolished by these papers. He further submitted as follows :- a) At page 43 of the assessee's paper book a letter dated 12th August,2006 is addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax requesting for notice of demand alongwith the income tax assessment order and this was filed only on 13th August, 2010. He submits that this shows absolute negligence on the part of the assessee and that no explanation is given at any stage of the proceedings before the CIT(A) on this discrepancy. b) The assessment resulted in NIL demand, after adjustment of taxes. Issuing notice of NIL demand cannot be a basis for not filing an appeal. c) A delay of four months is an abnor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pointed out that in the case of M/s. Sartorious Mechatronics India vs. ACIT, a delay of 1836 days was condoned for reason that the assesee was guided by professional advice and had not filed an appeal. He argued that being a Govt. Organisation a considerate approach has to be shown. He reiterated that there is no reason for the assesee, not to file an appeal. 7. Rival contentions heard. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and a perusal of the papers on record and the orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows. 8. The revenue in this case has stated that the notice of demand u/s 156 was served on the assessee along with the assessment order and computation form. Eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the affidavit executed on 25th August, 2010 is at variance. 10. The assessee stated in his letter dated 27th January, 2011 addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that it was only after it received the order of the Tribunal on 30.7.2010 for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 the status of the appeal in respect of the instant asstt. Year 2004-05 was examined and it was pointed out that no appeal has been filed, as no notice of demand was received. This statement shows that during the entire interregnum period of more than three years, the assessee has not pursued the matter to obtain the -NILnotice of demand. This period of delay has not been explained. 11. On the argument that an appeal was not filed on the ....