9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Decided against the assessee. Appeal before CIT(A) against order u/s 154 - condonation of delay - Held that:- The assessee was under the bonafide belief that the finding of the AO could be corrected/rectified u/s 154 of the Act - if a litigant is found pursuing a remedy under the wrong provision of the Act or the law under bonafide belief, which the courts ultimately found to be not maintainable under that provision or law and that the assessee should have pursued his remedy under another provision of the law, then the period consumed in pursuing such litigation under bonafide belief should be excluded for the purpose of calculation of limitation period, if the litigation chooses to pursue the remedy under the correct provision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income Tax (A) erred in affirming the decision of Assessing Officer for rejecting the claim of ₹ 1,62,340/- on account of inflated purchase of rose flower, ignoring the fact that appellant's employee had inflated the purchase price and the same should be allowed as deduction by treating it as embezzlement loss. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, to delete from or substantiate the above ground of appeal. 2 The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture of Indian Attars, Essential Oils, other attars Distillers. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings before the A.O. filed a letter dt.05.12.2006 requesting the A.O. to disallow purchase cost of jadibuties a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that even if the assessee s employee had inflated the purchase price of rose flowers, the same was to be allowed as deduction as embezzlement loss. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record of the assessment order, hence the present appeal is not maintainable. 6. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records. In our view though the assessee may have a good case on merits, however, it is not a case of any mistake apparent on the record. The AO passed the assessment order on the basis of material available before him. It has been time and again held by the higher courts that a mistake is apparent on the face of record when it is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the correct provision of the law. Accordingly, in this case also, if the assessee chooses to file an appeal before the next appellate authority i.e. CIT(A) against the assessment order in question, then the period consumed in pursuing the present litigation i.e. from the date of filing of application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act before the AO till the receipt of this order will be excluded for the purpose of calculation of limitation period in preferring such appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee will also be at liberty to move an application for condonation of delay explaining the relevant circumstances, if any, if, there may be found any delay in preferring the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), even after exclusion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
