9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of assessment - Addition of Product Development Expenses - addition was made by the AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- The assessee is not entitled to challenge the addition, which was not made in the reassessment order, since the reassessment proceedings are for the benefit of revenue as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd [ 1992 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] . Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. - ITA No.593 & 594/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2020 - Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet And Shri B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S Vasudevan, Advocate For the Revenue : Smt. Sowmya Aacharya, Addl. CIT ORDER PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both the appeals filed by the assessee are related to the assessment year 2007-08 and are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-1, Bengaluru. The appeal numbered as ITA No.593/B/2018 is related to the appellate order passed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The other appeal is related to the appellate order passed against the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t systems for automobiles. Essentially, the company manufactures-automobile safety belts and sells them to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). 2. Autoliv India is a subsidiary of Aut liv AB Sweden, Autoliv Safety Systems India Private Lid (seatbelt segment) was incorporated in 1992 in India as a joint venture between Autoliv AB Sweden and IFB Automotive Seating and Systems Pvt. Ltd. (1FB ASSL) India. During the year 2008, Autoliv AB, Sweden increased its shareholding in Autoliv Safety Systems India Private Ltd. to 100%, thus making Autoliv Safety Systems India Private Ltd a fully owned subsidiary. In fiscal year ended 2009, Auto Safety Systems Private Ltd merged with Autoliv India Private Ltd (airbags segment) into one entity named Autoliv India Private Limited. 3. Autoliv Safety Systems India Private Ltd (seatbelt segment) was originally filing its returns with the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12. Kolkata. In 2008 after Autoliv AB Sweden and two of its subsidiaries acquired 100% shareholding Autoliv Safety Systems India Private Ltd (seatbelt segment) shifted to New Delhi and sought a transfer of our files to New Delhi. Thereafter Autoliv Safety Sys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding the assessment for the Assessment Year 2007-08 was lost track of. 9. It is therefore humbly prayed that your Honour may kindly condone the delay of 27 months and hear the appeal. The appellant further humbly places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Revenue vs Mst. Katji[1987]167 1TR 471 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for belated appeals; Any appeal or any application other than an application and the provisions of order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant Or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such Period. 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause justice being defeated. As against tins when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Every day's delay must be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, wherein the AO, inter alia, disallowed the Product Development Expenses. According to the assessee, credit for correct amount of TDS was also not given. It is stated that the assessee has filed two rectification petitions on 07- 03-2011 and the said applications have not been disposed of till date. 8. In the mean time, the AO reopened the assessment and passed the assessment order on 15.02.2013. It is further submitted that, after passing of re-assessment order, the assessee has approached its legal counsel and as per advice given by them, the assessee has preferred appeal against the assessment order passed on 28-12- 2010 u/s 143(3) also. It is also the submission of Ld A.R that the assessee has not accepted the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and hence it filed two rectification applications before the AO, meaning that the assessee was not idle, but pursuing the matter in alternative way. He further submitted that the restructuring process, shifting of registered officer as well as the assessment jurisdiction etc., has caused confusion and delay in filing appeal in time. The Ld A.R relied upon the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
