TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of this consolidated order. Appeal wise and ground wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. I.T.A. No. 5203/M/2013 (AY:2003-2004) 2. This appeal filed by the assessee on 22.7.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-37, Mumbai dated 20.02.2013 for the assessment year 2003-2004. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in passing order without complying with the principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts and in not appreciating that no income fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was concerned, we were very much diligent and anxious about our obligation. The delay was only for the reasons which were beyond the control of the applicant. As a result of the above, the appeal was filed on 22.7.2013, i.e., late by 63 days for AY 2003-2004; (38 days for the AY 2004-2005)" 4. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that there is a reasonable cause that prevented the assessee to file the aforementioned appeals before the ITAT within the prescribed time and with a delay of 63 days for the AY 2003-04 (38 days for the AY 2004-05). Considering the same, we condone the delay for the two AYs under consideration and proceed to adjudicate the said appeals on merits. 5. At the outset, Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ld Counsel for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and, Ld Special Counsel for the Revenue dutifully relied on the order of the AO/CIT (A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta (supra). Whether the interest liabilities of Rs. 2,50,18,362/- constitutes ascertained one or not is also linked to the issue of rejection of books of accounts as the books of account is the basis for computation of book profits u/s 115JA of the Act. This is common issue qua the issue adjudicated in the case of the Hitesh S. Mehta (supra) and matter was set aside. Respectfully following the said order of the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised in ground no. 4 should be set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in passing order without complying with the principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in laws and in facts in levying penalty of Rs. 45,37,626/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act." 13. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the above grounds and mentioned that ground no. 1 and 2 are not pressed. After hearing both the parties, the said ground nos.1 and 2 are dismissed as not pressed. 14. Ground no. 3 relates to the levy of penalty of Rs. 45,37,626/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, at the outset, Ld Counsel for a the assessee brought our attent....