9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... While deciding the ground regarding charging of interest under s. 215 the CIT(A) held that this is consequential and is not appealable. The assessee then filed a petition under s. 154 dt. 24th June, 1991 and in para 6 thereof explained that the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in law due to mistake apparent from the record as the assessee denied its liability of payment of any such interest under s. 215 and as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 112 : (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC) and other decisions appeal lies against such levy of interest under s. 215. The CIT(A) rejected the petition on the ground that he had already expressed his finding on that and, therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record. 4. Being aggrieved by this order of the CIT(A) the assessee has preferred this appeal to the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee filed a paper-book containing 34 pages and submitted that the assessee is not at all liable to pay interest as the assessee filed return showing total loss of Rs. 19,360 as against assessed income of Rs. 1,46,620 because of certain disallowances. According to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adeshi Cotton Mills of Ahmedabad the Calcutta High Court held that the case of the assessee was that interest should not have been charged at all and in any event the ITO had not passed any order charging interest and, therefore, the order was appealable and the Tribunal was right in remanding the matter to the AAC for fresh consideration. In view of these decisions and legal pronouncements as well as considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that there was a mistake apparent from the record in the order of the CIT(A), insofar as the charging of interest under s. 215 is concerned it is appealable as the assessee has completely denied the liability. In this view of the matter we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with the direction to decide the issue afresh on merit after admitting this ground as appealable and after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Accordingly the appeal is treated to have been allowed for statistical purposes. 7. ITA No. 4120/Cal/91 (asst. yr. 1989-90) The first ground of appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in not considering at all the submissions made in para 1 of the petition d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not properly vouched and, therefore, he disallowed a sum of Rs. 50,000 out of Rs. 16,19,937. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the disallowance of expenses @ 4 per cent is highly excessive and without any basis. The CIT(A), therefore, considered the submission of the assessee and restricted the disallowance to Rs. 25,000. 12. The learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to assessee's application under s. 154 dt. 10th June, 1991, filed before the AO and submitted that the AO did never call for the vouchers in support of the staff welfare expenses and no such vouchers were ever produced by the assessee to him nor examined by him in the instant case. He also invited our attention to certified copies of the order-sheet placed at pp. 34 & 35 in order to prove his contention. On the basis of the assessment order placed at p. 1 of the paper-book the assessee submitted that all the details were produced and were examined by the AO. He also invited our attention to p. 19 of the paper-book wherein written submission of the assessee is placed. The learned counsel for the assessee then contended on the basis of these records that the AO as well as the CIT(A) have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee the statement is not only erroneous but self-contradictory and that the AO has not applied his mind and was suffering from a gross misconception about the facts and circumstances of the case. The representative of the assessee further submitted that no such explanation was called for by the AO and this fact is apparent from the record and, therefore, the allegation of the AO about the failure of the assessee to offer any satisfactory explanation is completely baseless and false. About the observation of the AO regarding reduction in most of the major items debited to the P&L a/c he pointed out that they are factually misconceived and wholly incorrect and are contrary to the facts. The learned counsel for the assessee also pointed out that the comparative analysis of expenditure as made by the AO is totally misconceived and erroneous as he has not considered the material fact that while the accounts of the previous year ended on 31st March, 1989, covers a period of 12 months, the accounts for immediately preceding year ending on 31st March, 1988, covers a period of 15 months and, therefore, the disallowance of the transport charges are not justified as they are based on pure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
