9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action in not enhancing the n.p. rate applied by AO when the said authority had made up mind for separately allowing depreciation. 4. We first deal with the preliminary objection orally raised by learned authorised representative of assessee during arguments to the maintainability of this appeal. He has contended that the first appellate authority has not allowed depreciation but has simply directed that the AO "may" allow the same. He has contended that in the circumstances the AO cannot have any grievance against the impugned order of CIT(A). He has cited CIT vs. Princess Sarla Kumari (1988) 67 CTR (MP) 19 : (1988) 171 ITR 14 (MP). He has also contended that against the impugned order of CIT(A) both the Department as also assessee prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal in its entirety. The assessee then preferred second appeal before Tribunal raising two grounds and the relevant ground No. (i) was "that the assessment is back-dated, being illegal and bad in law." The Tribunal instead of confining itself to this ground, rather went ahead and held that "the order of assessment had been passed before issue of notice under s. 143 and hearing the assessee", and this was never the plea of assessee before Tribunal. The second appeal filed by assessee before Tribunal was not maintainable for the reason that AAC had allowed assessee's appeal in its entirety and so the assessee could not be said to be "aggrieved" by the order of AAC within s. 253. It was in these circumstances that the Hon'ble M.P. High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue in Revenue's appeal would tentamount to filing of a fresh appeal on that count and the same cannot be allowed to be taken if the appeal becomes time-barred under s. 253(3) of IT Act. The Tribunal therein followed Indian Steel Wire Products Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 740 (Cal). In the instant case we find that the order appealed against was communicated on 26th March, 1997, as mentioned against sl. No. 9 of memo of appeal, and so the period of 60 days as provided under s. 253(3) from 26th March, 1997, has expired years before the filing of Revenue's petition for raising of the additional ground, on 6th Nov., 2000. As such as the appeal on this count becomes time-barred the additional ground being sought to be raised by the Revenue vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
