9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. - Delay condoned. - ITA Nos. 1659/Mds/2011, 693/Mds/2012 & CO No.21/Mds/2012 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2012 - SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JJ. Revenue by : Mr. K.E.B.Rengarajan, Jr.Standing Counsel Assessee by : Mr. Anand Kumar, C.A ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present set of appeals i.e. ITA No.1659/Mds/2011 and ITA No.693/Mds/2012 have been filed by the Revenue against the common order of the CIT(A)-VI, Chennai dated 28.07.2011. In ITA No.1659/Mds/2011 the Revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(A) on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the appeal after the prescribed period of limitation, condoned the delay of 458 days and allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits. While allowing the appeal, the CIT(A) has observed as under:- Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the appellant has written off the amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs during the relevant assessment year as claimed by the appellant in letter dated 8.12.2006 filed before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. As confirmed by the statutory auditor the said sum was offered as income. Therefore the requirement of section 36(1)(vi) is satisfied. Though the appellant has wrongly grouped the sum under loss on sale of asset , it is in fact write off of debts. Therefore, respectfully f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We have heard the submissions made by the rival parties and have also gone through the documents on record. The CIT(A) condoned the delay of 458 days in filing the appeal after accepting the reasons submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) in para 3 4 of the order has given detailed reasons for delay in filing of the appeal as well as the reasons for condoning the same. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India has held in catena of judgements that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper-technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly, 2005. As per the submissions made by the A.R., the amount of Rs. 32 lakhs which has been claimed as bad debts is included in the amount of Rs.6,77,55,441.50 and has not been recovered from M/s. Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd. till date. This fact cannot be verified in the absence of documents on record. In the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the amount claimed by the assessee is part of the billed amount of Rs.6,77,55,441.50 of M/s. Shriram Engineering Construction Co. Ltd. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In view of our above findings, the cross objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous and the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
