9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER Per Inturi Rama Rao, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-III [CIT(A)], Bangalore, dated 8/1/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent which is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be taxed over and above the income returned by the appellant of ₹ 6,50,72,050/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of ₹ 45,96,066/- in respect of excise duty component to be included in the valuation of closing stock of raw materials (consisting of a sum of ₹ 28,22,607/- claimed by the appellant as deductible and another sum of ₹ 17,73,459/- held to be includible by the assessing officer), on the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant-assessee is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of automobile tyres and tube valves, cores and accessories. Return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 13/10/2010 declaring total income of ₹ 6,50,72,046/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore [hereafter referred to as the AO ], at a total income of ₹ 7,02,17,890/- vide order dated 25/2/2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ the Act for short]. Disparity between returned income and the assessed income is on account of additions of ₹ 45,96,066/- on account of valuation of closing stock and opening stock by including the element of excise duty paid on the stock remaining as on 1/4/2009 and 31/3/2010 and addition of ₹ 5,10,367/- on account of foreign travel expenditure holding to be capital expenditure. It was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings of assessment year 2009-10 that excise duty was included as part of the value of closing stock for income-tax purpose even though in the books of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee-company has filed a petition praying for condonation of delay. The petition reads as under: The Appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows- 1. An Order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 was passed on 08.01.2014 in the case of the appellant by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Ill, Bangalore (for short 'the Commissioner (Appeals)') received by the appellant on 11.03.2014. 2. It is submitted that the appellant had preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle 12(4), Bangalore for the assessment year 2010- 11. There were certain additions and disallowances made in the assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal and challenged the addition of excise duty component of ₹ 45,96,066/- made by the assessing officer as part of the closing stock of raw materials. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this addition made by the assessing officer vide order dated 08.01.2014. 3. It is further submitted that the appellant was advised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the time the appellant sought the present counsel's advise an opinion in filing this appeal, there arose 226 days' delay in filing this appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 8. It is humbly prayed that this Hon ble Tribunal takes a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 226 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore passed under section 250 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 9. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand no hardship or injury would be caused to the Respondent if this application of condonation of delay is allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507. Further the appellant relies on anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the law of the land. The courts merely interpret the law and do not make law. Ignorance of law is not an excuse for not taking appropriate steps within limitation. Therefore the argument that the appellant did not know the true legal position is not one that can be accepted in law....... 10. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out any ground for condonation of delay of 997 days before the Tribunal. We see no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. The Hon ble High Court had followed the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Government of UP (1975) 4 SCC 378 that ignorance of law is not an excuse and therefore, delay in filing of appeal cannot be condoned on account of ignorance of law. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case cited supra is squarely applicable to the present case. In the present case also, the assessee not revealed the ill-advice nor produce any material in support of the averments made in affidavit. Therefore, we hold that it is not a fit case to condone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
