2021 (9) TMI 1023

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....being aggrieved by the Order passed by me Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as "Learned CIT (Appeals)"] dated 26/10/2017 presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal set out hereunder are independent of and without prejudice to each other: 1.0 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 7,95,121/- out of Rs. 10,63,955/- made by the learned A.O. u/s. 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. 2.0 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming such disallowance ignoring the provisions of Section 194C (6) of the Act and also ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with affidavit dated 13th Feb, 2020. In the affidavit, the assessee has explained that order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was misplaced from the assessee and after locating the order the same handed over to the consultant of the assessee who was based at Himatnagar, however, the appeal before the ITAT was to be filed by another consultant based at Ahmedabad. Therefore, there was some delay in filing the instant appeal because of the circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee. Looking to the explanation of the assessee and marginal delay in filing this appeal it appeared that there was reasonable cause which resulted delay in filing this appeal. Therefore, we c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The ld. counsel has referred the decisions of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs. DCIT 74 taxmann.com 90 (Kolkata ITAT), CIT vs. Shri Marikamba Transport Co. 57 taxman.com 273 (Karnataka High Court) and ACIT vs. Arihand Trading Co. 104 taxmann.com 336 (Jaipur ITAT). The ld. counsel submitted that in the aforesaid decisions it was held that when the assessee had made compliance with the provision of section 194C(6) then simply not making compliance with section 194C(7) will not lead to disallowing the claim of assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the act. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of lower authorities. 8. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating facts as elaborated in this ord....