Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO
O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective order of the CIT(A), inter alia, on following grounds:
The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding consideration of application filed u/s.154 of the Act for seeking rectification of order dated 17-07-2013 amounts to review of the appellate order and thereby reject the application made u/s. 154 of the Act.
2. Appellant submits that its application u/s. 154 is warranted as there is a mistake apparent on record and which requires the modification of order of the Learned CIT(A) of the Act. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application of the appellant dated 06-08-2013 made u/s.l54 of the Act. 4. Appellant submits on merits that restriction of disallowance of Rs.7,00,500/- by applying the provisions of sections 40(a)(ia) of the Act is erroneous as appellant as complied with the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by deducting the tax at source and by depositing the same with the Government. 5. Appellant submits that restriction of disallowance by the Learned CIT(A) in respect of purchases made u/s.40A(3) of the Act is wholly on misconception that payments are hit by provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and there is no violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 6. The Learned CIT(A) did not appreciate properly the contention of the appellant with reference to disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.41,28,000/- and erred in upholding interest.
During the course of hearing, our attention was invited that the appeal No. 1131/Bang/2014 filed against the main order of the CIT(A) is barred by time. The delay in filing of appeal is by 337 days. The reasons for the delay was explained through its application stating therein that after the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the rectification application under section 154 of the Act and since the rectification application was pending before the CIT(A), the present appeal was not filed under the belief that assessee may get a relief under section 154 of the Act. When the application under section 154 was dismissed by CIT(A), assessee filed the present appeal immediately. Whatever relief is sought in this appeal, it was sought under rectification application. Therefore, it is bonafide delay in filing of the appeal.
The learned DR however opposed the contentions of the assessee.
Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities and the documents available on record, we find that assessee has raised the similar grounds in the rectification application as are raised in this appeal. Under these circumstances of the case, we are of the view that assessee was having a bonafide belief that he would get a relief under section 154 of the Act and for that reason he did not file the appeal. Finding force in the contentions of the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Since the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues raised before him in the light of assessee’s contentions, we find it proper to restore the matter to his file for its adjudication for passing a reasoned order. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for adjudication of the impugned issues raised in this appeal on merit after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we have set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh, the appeal filed against the order of the CIT(A) passed under section 154 of the Act becomes infructuous and we dismiss the same.
In the result, appeals of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purpose and is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 19th January, 2018.