TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being common, these appeals are clubbed and heard togethe r and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The common effective grounds raised in these appeal s are as under: 2. The Assessing Officer erred in treating the expe nditure reimbursed as the income of the appellant without considering the fact that for the earlier years, th e Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the said reimbursable expenditure does not represent income of the appellant. 3. The Assessing Officer erred in taxing the assess ee in respect of the income derived from the projects sta rted before 1.4.2003 at 20% as against the rate applicab le of 15%. At the outset, we note that these appeals were&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are reproduced hereunder: "We, the undersigned carefully considered the contentions of the AO in the draft order and the arguments of the Ld. Counsel. We have also called f or the scrutiny report based on which the department has preferred petition 260A before the Hon'ble High Cou rt on the orders of the ITA T. It is not clear whether t he 260A petition of the Department has been admitted or not . The AO/Addl.DIT stated that they have not received any communication from the Sr. Standing counsel regardi ng the admission of the petition. In case the same has been admitted the department may have to pass the order since the matter has not reached finality. In case the H on'ble High Court has rejected the 260A petition a finalit y is reached and hence, the orders of the Hon'ble ITA T are to be im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;Dispute Resolution Panel are new to the petitioner. It is only when the petitioner approached the Advocate in connection with the posting of the case by DRP for t he assessment year 2010-2011, the petitioner was infor med that an appeal lies against the assessment order pa ssed by the Assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act. The petitioner immediately thereafter got the appeal prepared for the assessment year under consideration and the same is being filed before th e Hon'ble ITAT on 12.6.2012. As the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C was served on 21.10.2011, there is a de lay of 175 days. The petitioner humbly submits that the de lay is for the reasons submitted above and is neither wilf ul nor intentional. The petitioner therefore, prays&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on the merits after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; the Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals . 17. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular c ase, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for purposes of sect ion 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdic t, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental decisio ns are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the p rocess of their making." Considering the peculiar facts, namely, the change of Government pleader ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Tribunal against the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act as DRP gave direction in their order dated 16.9.2011 t hat in case the petition u/s. 260A is admitted by the Hon'ble H igh Court, the Department has to pass an order and in case the Hon'ble High Court has rejected the petition preferred u/s. 260A of the Act, it may be considered to file an MA before the DRP. The Assessing Officer has not made any mention about th e status of the appeal filed by the Department before the Hon'b le High Court in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r. w.s. 144C of the Act. The assessee came to k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; opinion that this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1073 & 1 074/Hyd/04 for A.Ys. 2000-01 and 2001-02 and ITA Nos. 720 & 72 5/Hyd/08 dated 30 th January, 2010 for A.Ys. 2002-03 wherein held as follows: "7. We find that in assessee's own case the Hon'bl e ITAT vide its order dated 30.6.2010 in ITA Nos. 1073 & 1074/Hyd/2004 for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and in ITA Nos. 720 & 721/Hyd/2005 dated 30.6.2010 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003 - 04 has held as follows: "We have also carefully gone through the judgement of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Tanubai D. Desai (1972) 84 ITR 713. In the case before the Bombay H igh &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised act of converting any part of the corp us or even the income derived there from would not conver t those moneys held by him for his benefit. Accordin gly, it was held that the interest income which was neither disclosed in the return of income nor adjusted to t he clients was held to be not taxable. In the case be fore us the facts are almost similar. The assessee receive d the money as a reimbursement after incurring the expenditure. In the case before the Bombay High Co urt, the money was received by the solicitor in advance. In the case before us the money was received after incurri ng the expenditure by way of reimbursement. Therefore, th e reimbursable expenditure received by the assessee c annot form part of the total ....