AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the dismissal of the appeal there-against by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) vide order dated 28.08.2015 (in ITA No.5096/Mum/2015), i.e., the quantum assessment. 2. The appeal against the revision order is delayed by a period of 458 days. We shall therefore take up the appeal against the merits of the assessment first, as if the assessee succeeds against the same, the challenge to the section 263 order becomes unfructuous. 3. Assessment for the instant year, made in the first instance on 01.02.2012 (and which travelled up to the first appellant stage), was held as erroneous in-so-far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in-as-much as the assessee had been allowed its' claim for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... units entitled for deduction u/s. 80IC, under the head "Income from other sources". There isn't an iota of doubt that a definite finding was recorded in the aforesaid revision order on the issue at hand. There was absolutely no discretion with the Assessing Officer to consider the impugned interest income in any other fashion other than what was directed by the Commissioner. It may be gainfully be noted that whether the appellant has perused the statutory remedies against the revision order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Administrative Commissioner on not, does not impinge on this appeal. The said revision order stands intact as on date, without being modified by an order of a superior competent authority. Thus, the issue of taxation of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment afresh by taxing interest income of Rs. 1,92,21,567/- [1,39,10,069/- + 53,11,498/-] earned by its units entitled for deduction u/s.80IC, under the head "Income from other sources".' Per the revision order, the ld. CIT has clearly directed the AO to assess the interest income allocated by the assessee to the two units located at Baddi entitled to deduction under section 80-IC as 'Income from other sources'. The directions are plain, clear and unambiguous, leaving no scope for any discretion with the A.O. It is not a case of a total set aside of assessment, but to a limited extent, so that it has to be modified to the stated extent only. The AO in the revised assessment is to interfere wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition (which is dated 06.09.2016), also stating likewise, is that the appellant did not prefer an appeal as the ld. CIT had set aside the assessment, so that the same would be made afresh and, as such, the issues involved would be agitated before the AO or the appellate authorities, i.e., against the order of the A.O. Nothing could be farther from truth, i.e., in face of the clear directions by the ld. CIT, which the AO was bound to follow. How, then, we wonder, could it be said that the 'issues' would be agitated in the assessment proceedings before the AO and, thereafter, before the appellate authorities. That is, we find no basis for the said bona fide belief, which is stated as the reason for the assessee having not preferred an appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l? Assuming these grounds itself betrays the assessee's case. This, we may though clarify, is independent and apart from our having found no reason for any different interpretation and, thus, no basis for a bonafide belief. In our clear view, even as expressed during hearing, the assessee had clearly, and presumably, only on the basis of a legal opinion, taken a conscious decision not appeal against the revision order, passed with reference to and relying on several decisions, including by the Apex Court. No reasonable, much less sufficient, cause has been advanced for condonation of delay. Reliance for the purpose, even as our decision is based on clear findings of fact, is placed on the decision in the case of State of A.P vs. Venkatar....