TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l are as under:- 2.1 The assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacture of automobile components, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 28.11.2013 declaring loss of (-) Rs. 5,91,24,889/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dated 03.03.2016, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 1,21,23,218/-. In this order, the business income was taken as declared at NIL, but there was no mention of the carry forward of business loss of Rs. 5,91,24,889/- which the assessee had claimed. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 03.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee filed an ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le CIT(A) considering the quantum, costs of appeal and efforts involved in the litigation process and there was no willful act by the Appellant in any delay in filing of appeal. 4. That the CIT erred on facts and in law in concluding the appeal only based on the delay in filing of appeal, thereby ignoring the merits of the matter and issue of the case, which needed attention. 5. That the CIT erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the settled principle that the words 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss against the income from other sources was submitted before the Assessing Officer (AO). This was disregarded by the AO and the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 03.03.2016 was concluded by computing the assessed income; both without allowing the set off of business loss vis-à-vis income form other sources and without allowing the carry forward of business losses declared in the return of income. 3.2.2 It is submitted that the assessee then filed a rectification application dated 28.03.2016 before the AO pointing out the mistakes that required rectification in the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 dated 03.03.2016 and subsequently a reminder dated 22.02.2017 was also sent to the AO in this re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the CIT(A) is allowed as the assessee was seeking the set off of business losses against income from other sources; which it is legally entitled to. In support of the assessee's submissions, the learned AR, inter alia, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) (SC). 3.3 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A) and contended that the condonation of delay sought for by the assessee is not warranted for the reasons stated by CIT(A) in the impugned order. 3.4.1 We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. From a perusal of the copy of the return of income filed by the assessee for Assessment Yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Therefore, in our view, it stands to reason that the pendency of the rectification proceedings before the AO and the assessee's expectation that the issue could be sorted out at that level has contributed in no small measure to the delay in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 before the CIT(A). 3.4.3 In the factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, we are inclined to accept the contentions of the assessee that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal for Assessment year 2013-14 before the CIT(A). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra) has laid down the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of....