9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k challenging the impugned order of the Ld CIT(A)- XXX, Mumbai dated 15.3.2002 and this appeal is arising out of the order passed u/s. 201(1) r.w.s 192 of the I.T. Act. 2. The assessee has taken two following effective Grounds in the appeal:- "1. The learned Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) has erred in including the notional interest on the refundable deposits provided by the Appellant to the landlords of the houses rented for providing accommodation to the employee in the 'Fair Rental Value' for the purpose of computing perquisite value under rule 3(a). 2. Without prejudice to the rights of the assessee to challenge the orders on merits, it would be appreciated that section 192(1) casts an obligation on the employer to withhol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the reasons given above in the affidavit, nothing is stated and filed on Record except filing the compilation of bunch of case laws. 4. We have heard the parties. The Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a mistake on the part of the assessee by inadvertently filing the appeal in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (TDS) II (2), Mumbai instead of filing the same in the office of the Registrar of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Ld Counsel referred to the Xerox copy of the Form No. 36 and submitted that on the Form No. 36 which is the Appeal Memo, there is acknowledgement by the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (TDS) II (2), Mumbai and the said appeal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the office of the Asst. Commissioner of I.T. (T.D.S.) or prior to said date. He, therefore, pleaded that reasons given by assessee bank is self made story and hence, inordinate delay in filing the present appeal should not be condoned. 6. We have heard the parties and also perused the record. There is no dispute in this case that the appeal is time barred by 1695 days. There is also no dispute about the fact that the order of the Ld CIT(A) which is challenged in this appeal was received by the assessee Bank somewhere in the month of March 2002 (no specific date of receipt of the appeal is mentioned in Affidavit). The assessee Bank is a foreign Bank having the base in the USA. The assessee was also represented by the qualified Chartered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
