2017 (3) TMI 1801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/PUN/2014 has raised the following grounds of appeal : "1. The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's application seeking rectification of CIT(A) order dt 30.01.2013 confirming the addition of Rs. 3,39,073 made in the Block Asst Order, based on the seized trial balance as on 31.03.2001 found in search action on 27.06.2002 at the assessee's business premises. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the subject amount was in respect of y.e. 31.3.2000 and included addition of Rs. 16,20,674 based on seized document reflecting profit on sale of premises in y.e .. 31.03.2000 at page no 122B Bundle No. A-9 of Party No A-12 which was held by CIT(A) in appellate order dt 30.01.2013 as not in fact made and was only a calculation. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,39,073 without appreciating the factual explanation of documents on record and the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant pleads that the rectification application ought to have been accepted and the addition of Rs. 339073 made in the block assessment and confirmed by CIT(A) in his order dt 30.01.2013 ought to be deleted." 4. The assessee in ITA No.2658/PUN/2016 has raise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Road, Pune 411001 do solemnly declare and affirm as under : That the company was incorporated on 31.10.1989 and filed its income tax returns upto A Y 1999-2000 with the Asst CIT Circle 1(2), Pune under PAN AAACK8694D The company continuously suffered losses and the book losses as on 31.03.1999 were Rs. 11,68,960 and the losses under the Income Tax Act, 1961 were Rs. 16,45,125/-. That on 27.06.2002 following search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the premises of the company and its directors, the company filed block return on 15.07.2004 declaring Nil undisclosed income for AY 1997-98 to AY 2003-04 (upto 27.06.2002). The AO i.e. Deputy CIT Central 2(1), Pune vide block assessment order dt 21.07.2004 assessed undisclosed income at Rs. 59,55,928. The company contested the assessment in appeal before CIT(A), Central who by order dt 31.01.2013 granted relief deleting five additions and sustaining one addition of Rs. 3,39,073 made by the AO in block assessment. The relief granted to the company has not been contested by the Department. The addition of Rs. 3,39,073 represented a consequential addition which aro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder of rectification under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 17.10.2014 and the assessee filed an appeal against the said order on 19.11.2014. In other words, the assessee in the month of October - 2014 / November - 2014 was aware that the addition of Rs. 3,39,073/- has been confirmed in the hands of the assessee. However, the assessee did not file any appeal against the same, while it was filing the appeal against the dismissal of its rectification plea under Section 154 of the Act. However the assessee filed an appeal against the original order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), confirming the addition of Rs. 3,39,073/- on 22.11.2016. The assessee is duty bound to explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal late. 8. We can understand the case of the assessee to the extent that till the pendency of the rectification application under Section 154 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee did not seek the alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal against the addition of Rs. 3,39,073/-, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However once the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had disposed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautions approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The Court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression 'sufficient cause', the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance." 12. In another decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani in Civil Appeal Nos. 4118 & 4119 of 1996, had also condoned the delay of 109 days in filing appeal by the "State" on the ground that State is impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. 13. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors in Civil Appeal Nos. 2395 of 2008 had considered the case of delay of 90 days and had held that in case where the delay was not huge, the same could have been condoned without putting the respondent to harm or prejudices. Applying the above principle, we dismiss the condonation application....