9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sure to the delay in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 before the CIT(A). We are inclined to accept the contentions of the assessee that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal for Assessment year 2013-14 before the CIT(A). The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji [ 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] has laid down the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay; emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Hon ble Court observed that a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late. The Hon ble Court has also explained that every day s delay mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) vide order dated 03.03.2016, wherein the assessee s income was determined at ₹ 1,21,23,218/-. In this order, the business income was taken as declared at NIL, but there was no mention of the carry forward of business loss of ₹ 5,91,24,889/- which the assessee had claimed. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 03.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-7, Bengaluru; belatedly by 65 days. The assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of the aforesaid delay of 65 days in filing the appeal putting forth its explanation that by the time the company d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. That the CIT erred on facts and in law in concluding the appeal only based on the delay in filing of appeal, thereby ignoring the merits of the matter and issue of the case, which needed attention. 5. That the CIT erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the settled principle that the words 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. 6. That the CIT erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the main issue under appeal regarding non-grant of setting off of business losses o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO and the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 03.03.2016 was concluded by computing the assessed income; both without allowing the set off of business loss vis- -vis income form other sources and without allowing the carry forward of business losses declared in the return of income. 3.2.2 It is submitted that the assessee then filed a rectification application dated 28.03.2016 before the AO pointing out the mistakes that required rectification in the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 dated 03.03.2016 and subsequently a reminder dated 22.02.2017 was also sent to the AO in this regard. The AO disposed off the rectification application vide letter dated 02.03.2017 declining to rectify t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losses against income from other sources; which it is legally entitled to. In support of the assessee s submissions, the learned AR, inter alia, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) (SC). 3.3 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A) and contended that the condonation of delay sought for by the assessee is not warranted for the reasons stated by CIT(A) in the impugned order. 3.4.1 We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. From a perusal of the copy of the return of income filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 in the case on hand, it clearly emerges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t stands to reason that the pendency of the rectification proceedings before the AO and the assessee s expectation that the issue could be sorted out at that level has contributed in no small measure to the delay in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 before the CIT(A). 3.4.3 In the factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, we are inclined to accept the contentions of the assessee that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal for Assessment year 2013-14 before the CIT(A). The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra) has laid down the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay; empha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
