9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by : Miss Ritika Agarwal Respondent by : Miss S Padmaja ORDER Vivek Varma, J.M.: The appeal is filed against order of CIT -22, Mumbai, dated 05.02.2013, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. In the instant case, return was filed at ₹ 5,15,288/- and an assessment under section 143(3) was made at ₹ 6,21490/-. 3. In the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee sold a plot, bearing no. C-89, East of Kailash, New Delhi at ₹ 4,99,500/-. The AO referred the valuation of the plot to DVO, under section 55A((b)(ii). No report was received till the framing of the assessment order on 21.12.2010, which the AO mentions in the order. 4. The CIT received a proposal for revising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. (2) That the last date for filing an appeal before the Hon ble ITAT, Mumbai was 14/04/2013 but I could manage to file it only on 24/01/2014, resulting in a delay of about 9 months. (3) That the ld. CIT vide his order dated 5/2/2013 had directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity of being heard and at that time, the importance of the order was not understood by me. (4) That in pursuance of the order of the ld. CIT, an assessment order dated 29/11/2013 u/s 143 r w s 263 was passed, levying a huge demand of ₹ 20,22,300/-. (5) That I am an engineer by qualification and being a retired person was appearing in my own matters till that stage. (6) That faced with this huge demand, I realized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the delay of approximately 9 month in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits . 9. The AR submits that a lenient view may be taken . 10. The DR on the other hand has strongly objected to the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that the delay cannot be condoned on the mere plea of ignorance of Income Tax Laws. 11. We have heard the parties on the issue and we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, we have to do justice and the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order on the basis of DVO s report u/s 55A(b)(ii) of the Act which was not applicable in law or on facts to present case . 15. As mentioned earlier in the order, it has been observed by us that the assessment was framed subject to valuation by the DVO. This, by itself is a deficiency in the order under section 143(3). 16. We further find that the proposal was received by the CIT from the AO, which clearly means that there has been no independent application of mind by the CIT, because section 263(1) clearly says, The Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act, and if he considers , which means that proposal for initiation of revision proceedings must be initiated by the CIT, because, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
