9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter disallowing the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act. 3. The A.O. had kept in abeyance the recovery of tax raised in the assessment order in view of the Department's appeal pending on identical issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court. According to the assessee, since the demand raised was kept in abeyance, an appeal was not filed within the time limit prescribed, because the assessee was under bonafide belief that assessment order would be amended raising the demand and thereafter only an appeal needed to be filed. However, later, when the Assessing Officer threatened with recovery proceedings, an appeal was filed before the first appellate authority with a delay of 738 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay of filing the appeal before him. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- "1. The impugned order under Appeal is for the A.Y. 2014-15 and the same is opposed to Law and facts of the case for the contentions raised hereunder. 2. The Assessing officer has erred in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Karnataka had on identical case had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Further, the A.O. noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was not accepted and an appeal was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The A.O. also stated that the demand raised on account of disallowance of claim u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act shall not be enforced and be kept in abeyance. The relevant finding of the A.O. in this regard reads as follow:- "8. After taking into account various aspects concerning the legal implications and the verdicts of the Courts, it is of the considered view that the case needs to be handled at par with jurisdictional decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and other decisions referred by the assessee. However, it is not out of place to bring forth here that the decision of jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowing the deduction claimed u/s. 80P has not been considered by the revenue in toto. In other words, revenue has preferred a plea before the Apex Court substantiating the stand that claim of deduction u/s. 80P is not to be considered for the various reasons and legality of the aspect. Since the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the delay cannot be attributed to any latches on the part of the assessee. 7.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST. Katiji and Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471, had laid down six principles for consideration of the Courts while dealing with petitions for condonation of delay. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court are as follow:- (i) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by loading an appeal late; (ii) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (iii) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational. Commonsense and pragmatic manner. (iv) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filing the appeal and delay of 1297 and 1244 days was condoned. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case, cited supra, reads as follow:- "5. On a careful consideration of the above submissions of the rival parties, we note that in the case of Perfect Scale Company [supra] the ITAT, Mumbai Bench has held as under: "After considering the submission and perusing the material on record, found that the assessee was bonafide in not filing the appeals in time Copy of the affidavit of the Director of the company is placed on record. It has been explained that the company received the order ITA Nos. 3228 to 3234/2013 of CIT(A) dated 1-10-2011 and the appeal should have been filed before the Tribunal within 60 days. It is further explained that the appeal matters of the assessee were looking after by Mr. P.K. Tandon Chartered Accountant and on his advice the appeals were not filed However; when the assessee transferred the case to Mr. S.S. Gajja, Chartered Accountant who advised that appeals are to be filed before the Tribunal as the order of the CIT(A) is not as per the provisions law. I noted that due to wrong. advice of the Chartered Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
