9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2018 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L. P. Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Deepesh Garg and Shri Somi Agarwal Advocates For the Revenue : Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, J. M. Both the appeals by the same assessee-company are directed against the different orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad, dated 2nd August, 2016, for the A.Ys. 2005-2006 and 2008-2009, dismissing both the appeals of the assesseecompany in limine holding them to be time barred. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that for A.Y. 2005- 2006, the A.O. passed the assessment order on 27th November, 2007. The A.O. considered the issue of loss not allowable under section 94 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 and SLP of the assesseecompany has been dismissed on 10th October, 2011. For A.Y. 2008-2009, similarly, assessee-company filed rectification application under section 154 which were rejected vide order dated 13th June, 2011. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee-company against 154 Order vide order dated 11th June, 2016. The assessee-company withdraw the appeal from the Tribunal. The appeal of assessee-company against penalty in this year was pending before the Tribunal. 2.3. In the background of these facts, Ld. CIT(A) noted that there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals. The assessee-company contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that addition has been wrongly made by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) however, did not ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the additions, which were not correctly challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). It is well settled law that no appeal lies on agreed additions. We, rely upon the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jivatlal Purtapshi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, 65 ITR 261 (Bom.), Decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vamadevan Bhanu 330 ITR 559 (Kerala) and Decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala 125 ITR 239 (P H). Since the assesseecompany agreed for these additions before A.O, therefore, there is no question of filing any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee-company correctly did not file any appeal before the Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay is of a few days. The Court observed that whereas in the former consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor and calls for a more cautious approach. In the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. Now in the present cases delay is not of a few days but of 08 years and 04 years respectively. Besides, there is absolutely no valid explanation/reason for the delay. In the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773, the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court has observed that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
