9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) on 26.4.2011 which was within 22 days of the receipt of the impugned order. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee was within the period of limitation. matter remanded back to his file for deciding the appeal. appeal of the assessee is allowed - IT Appeal No.178 (Mds.) of 2012 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2012 - N.S. SAINI, VIKAS AWASTHY, JJ. ORDER N.S. Saini, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. He submitted a copy of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 314 (Kar) wherein it has been held that when the appeals stood rejected only on the ground of delay the assessee was liable to pay court fee @ 500/-for the appeal. Therefore, respectfully following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of receipt of the order by the assessee was 4.4.2011. He pointed out from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the ld. CIT(A) has in first page of the order stated that the appeal was instituted on 26.4.2011. Hence, he pointed out that effectively, the appeal was filed by the assessee within 22 days from the receipt of the impugned order of the Assessing Officer and therefore, the appeal was presente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r authorities and the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has taken the date 20.12.2010 as the date of receipt of the impugned order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 154 of the Act by the assessee in calculating the limitation period for presenting the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has successfully demonstrated before us that the impugned order of the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
