TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of appeal:- "1. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in treating the case as fit for revision u/s 263 of The Income tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts in Assessing the Total Income at Rs. 1,02,11,170/- as against the originally assessed income of Rs. 1,06,410/- 3. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the claim of the appellant u/s 80P with respect to Interest Income earned from various nationalized and scheduled banks and government companies to the tune of Rs. 50,37,428/-. 4. CIT has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the claim of the appellant u/s 80P by treating the Annual Crop Charges Income as Rent to the tune of Rs. 8,13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso filed an affidavit to the above effect. The counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT 280 ITR 357 (Madras) to contend that there is no hard and fast rule in the matter of condonation of delay and the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and should exercise their 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 and it should receive a liberal construction. In the instant facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee could demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. Accordingly, we are hereby condoning the delay in filing the appeal of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the same was also not allowable for deduction under the provisions of section 80P of the Act and the same was wrongly allowed by the AO while finalizing the assessment without examining the facts of the case. (iv) The assessee had claimed set-off of business losses of AY 2011-12 of Rs. 52,10,105/- against the income of the present year. During the course of assessment proceedings, this claim of set off was not verified by the AO and the loss claimed by the assessee was irregular as the income/loss was exempt under section 80P of the Act. Thus, the business loss claimed to the tune of Rs. 52,10,105/- without giving effect to the apportionment was irregular and wrongly allowed by the AO. 5. The assessee represented its case be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the original assessment order, specific observations that the claim of the assessee was allowed without analysis of facts of the case/incorrect application of law by the AO and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case. The Delhi ITAT in the case of MannesmannDemag A.G. v. DCIT [1995] 53 ITD 533 (Delhi)[20-03-1995] held that Commissioner can exercise jurisdiction under section 263 on basis of audit objection provided he applies his own mind before deciding whether any action is warranted under section 263 of the Act. In the instant facts, since Ld. Pr. CIT has duly applied his mind on various issues, therefore, on jurisdiction, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT. 6. Now on ....