2018 (3) TMI 1302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riefly, the facts of the case are that for A.Y. 2005- 2006, the A.O. passed the assessment order on 27th November, 2007. The A.O. considered the issue of loss not allowable under section 94(7) of the I.T. Act in a sum of Rs. 8,59,897/-. The assessee-company himself calculated the same disallowance and surrendered this amount, subject to no penalty. Similarly, in A.Y. 2008-2009, the A.O. passed the assessment order on 31st December, 2010 and similarly, the assessee-company surrendered the amount of Rs. 4,92,372/- under section 94(7) of the I.T. Act, subject to no penalty. It is, therefore, clear that the assessee-company on this addition agreed before the A.O. in both the assessment years. The assessee-company did not file appeals before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cause for delay in filing the appeals. The assessee-company contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that addition has been wrongly made by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) however, did not accept the contention of assessee-company and noted that there was sufficient opportunities available to assessee-company to file appeal. The assessee-company failed to prove any sufficient cause. Therefore, both the appeals were dismissed in limine as the assessee-company has not been able to provide any sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeals. Both the appeals were accordingly dismissed holding them to be time barred. 3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that the entire delay has been occurred due to ignorance of law by the Chartered Accountant. But....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions before A.O, therefore, there is no question of filing any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee-company correctly did not file any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The assessee-company after 08 and 04 years respectively, filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging both these additions without any justification and basis. It was contended that the delay occurred due to ignorance of law by the Chartered Accountant and later on, Shri J.P. Gulati, Advocate, advised the assessee-company that such amount is not taxable. However, assessee-company has failed to explain as to how the appeals of the assessee-company would be maintainable when it has agreed for addition before the A.O. The explanation of assessee-company is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....slature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigor and effective consequences. In this case, delay for filing the appeal late for only a few days was not condoned. In the case of ACIT vs. Taggas Industries Development Ltd. (2002) 80 ITD 21 (Tribu.) (Cal.), the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal, did not condone the delay for filing the appeal late by 13 days because the delay was not due to sufficient cause. Thus, relying on the above judgments, we hold that assessee....