9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had made additions to its plant and machinery of its cement unit at Udaipur, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. According to the assessee, the said investment amounting to Rs. 3,47,89,596 qualified for investment allowance available under section 32A. In fact the claim was made by the assessee in its computation of income. Investment allowance was granted by the Assessing Officer including an allowance of Rs. 69,57,919, pertaining to the additions made in the Cement unit at Udaipur. 3. The assessee had sold its Udaipur cement unit to M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited during the relevant previous year except certain machineries which were leased out by the assessee. On this, the Assessing Officer proposed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The due date for filing of appeal was November 21, 1997 ; but the appeal was filed on May 21, 1998. The assessee had filed the condonation petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The main ground raised in the condonation petition is that the appeal has been filed in the light of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaan Finance P. Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 308 and as the said decision was not available at the time of due date, the delay was caused. The assessee had also filed a petition under section 154 before the Assessing Officer to rectify his order in the light of the order of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaan Finance P. Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 308. 7. In the above circumstances it was the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the points raised therein and we cannot refuse to sit in judgment citing certain consequential difficulties. 11. Therefore it is to be seen that the assessee has exercised its legitimate right to move the petition before the Assessing Officer and also filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is to be seen that the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the petition filed under section 154 which is again not justified. Apart from the observation of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the proliferation of litigation, he has not otherwise considered the reasonableness of condoning the delay. The delay caused in this case before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was of 180 days. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
