“Section 253(2)”
The decision most relied on for Section 253(2) is Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr (398 ITR 250), cited in 291 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 253(2)
This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.
Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not permissible where the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. A CBDT Circular cannot override the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D to mandate such a disallowance.
Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.
The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) can consider questions of law arising in assessment proceedings even if they were not raised before the lower authorities. An appellate authority possesses all powers of the original authority, subject to statutory limitations.
A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.
No disallowance for investments made out of surplus funds can be made if tax-free dividends are earned on such investments.
When the valuation of closing stock is adjusted to include CENVAT or Modvat credit under Section 145A, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock.
