9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have been treated as validly filed on the date when the tax amount was paid. After examining the factual matrix, Tribunal condoned the delay and directed CIT (Appeals) to hear the appeal on merits as it was admitted that the tax amount has been paid. See J.K.Chaturvedi V. ACIT [2003 (9) TMI 286 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - Decided against revenue. - ITA 384/2013 and CM No.12112/2013 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010 determining the total income at ₹ 20,88,99,730/-. 3. Dissatisfied, the respondent filed first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The respondent had failed to make payment of tax on the returned income of ₹ 939,00,720/- amounting to ₹ 412,62,460/-. During the pendency of the first appeal, this amount was deposited on 16.2.2012. For the purpose of clar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. It has been held that the appeal should have been treated as validly filed on the date when the tax amount was paid. Tribunal also examined the question whether delay in filing of the first appeal should be condoned in view of the factual position. After examining the factual matrix, Tribunal condoned the delay and directed CIT (Appeals) to hear the appeal on merits as it was admitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 82 TTJ 284 wherein similar view was taken. It has not pointed out to us or stated that the decision in the case of J.K.Chatuvedi (Supra) was made subject matter of challenge before the High Court or a contrary view has been taken in the case. 7. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and entertain this appeal on a substantial question of law. 8. The appeal is dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
