9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed order on 29.8.2006 whereas in the year 2011, for the first time, the assessee filed its representation(supra). No doubt, the law of limitation is only a tool to serve justice. When there is sufficient explanation, even time barred lis can be entertained by condoning delay. Hence, in our opinion, this hopelessly time barred appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of limitation. Issue decides against assessee Claim u/s. 40(b) – Fresh Claim before ITAT- Whether the CIT(A) order confirming the findings of the AO in rejecting assessee’s claim u/s 40(b)B is to be upheld or modified as per the respective stands of the parties – Held that:- Assessee needs for filing a revised return for making a fresh claim. In first round of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm comprised of himself and three others witnesseth, That the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) XII Chennai passed an order dated 29/8/2006 in the case of M/s.CICA upholding the denial of the deduction under section 40(b) by the Assessing Officer in an order giving to effect to an earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal. That the Managing Partner was agitating the matter before the income tax authorities at different levels for this relief and many more reliefs in the case of the firm as well as in the hands of his own individual assessment. That the authorities were not responding to his numerous letters for a long time, That the individual partner was unyielding and was ceaselessly persuing the matter with the Administration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand, has submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has passed order on 29.8.2006 whereas the correspondence/representation was moved by the assessee only in the year 2011, in between. Therefore, there is no explanation, the assessee has not been diligent in pursuing its remedy of appeal. 4. We have heard the contentions of both parties regarding delay in filing appeal. We find that this is second round of litigation. Earlier, the assessing authority completed the assessment under sec.143(3) read with sec.147 of the Act. Therein, the assessee s claim of expenditure at the rate of 98% of the service charges received was restricted to 20%. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who estimated the assessee s net profit at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up he matter and issued notice to the assessee. It was in these proceedings for the first time that the assessee claimed net profit of the assessee firm engaged in the business of imparting training to employees of corporate bodies and raised the claim of entitlement for the expenditure towards remuneration to the partners and interest on capital account. The Assessing Officer negated the assessee s contention by holding that it had not produced books of accounts and other supporting documents in the assessment proceedings in the first instance. Further, on merits as well, vide assessment order dated 31.1.2006, the assessee s claim has been held to be doubtful in the absence of any cogent evidence. 6. The assessee preferred appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no satisfactory explanation of delay in filing the appeal. It is settled law that every application/petition seeking condonation of delay has to contain material facts which prevented the concerned litigant to initiate the lis within the limitation prescribed. Effectuation of substantial justice is the core objective of formation of a statutory body like Tribunal . While doing so, it should not be chained by procedural requirements. Liberal consideration of condonation petition is a general rule followed by this Tribunal. But this liberal attitude cannot be stretched to such an extent that there is travesty of justice. Rules of justice apply equally to assessee and Revenue. Even if an assessee can t explain delay on day to day bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same time, the provision is not absolute. The necessary condition for invoking the said provision by the concerned assessee is that; the claim has to be raised at an appropriate stage supported by necessary evidence in the shape of documents and other particulars. It is admitted position that in the first round of assessment(supra) neither such claim had been raised nor was any revised return filed. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd v. CIT (284 ITR 323) has clearly brought on the need for filing a revised return for making a fresh claim. Whereas in present case, it is only after remand order reproduced herein above of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Chennai that the assessee preferred to raise claim the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
