TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MEMBER J, Radheshyam Bhattad for the Appellant. Ganesh Rao for the Respondent. ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member These are two appeals preferred (i) by the assessee which is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT (A), Belgaum in ITA No: 8/BJP/07-08 dated: 27-8-2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 and (ii) the Cross Objection of the Revenue against the assessee s appeal before this Bench. I. ITA No:1027/09 (By the assessee): 2. The assessee firm has raised three grounds, out of which, ground No. 3 being general and no specific issue involved, it doesn t survive for adjudication. In the remaining grounds, the cruxes of the issues raised were that- (i) the delay of four days in filing recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not to be deducted from the cost of assets for the purpose of calculation of depreciation. (iv) In view of the above, it was requested to rectify the order under section 154 of the Act for the assessment year 2002-03.... 5.1 The assessee s application was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide his impugned order [No. 154/ACIT/C I/BJP/07-08 dated 22-8-2007] with a reasoning that Your rectification petition under section 154 dated 4-4-2007 has been rejected as I am not inclined to entertain petition under section 154 as it is barred by limitation of time. 6. Agitated, the assessee took up the issue with the Ld. CIT (A) for relief. The Ld. CIT (A) had, in his impugned order under dispute, observed thus - 3. In this connection, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within his domain to reject the assessee s application under section 154 of the Act as it was barred by limitation. The stand of the Assessing Officer was duly endorsed by the Ld. CIT (A) in his impugned order which is under dispute. It was, therefore, prayed that there was no valid substance in the argument of the assessee which requires to be summarily rejected. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, diligently perused the relevant records and also the fresh evidence adduced during the course of hearing under rule 29 of ITAT Rules as well as the paper book furnished by the Ld. A R to drive home his point. 8.1 Before looking into the facts of the issue, let us have a glance at what the provisions of section 154 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. A R during course of hearing before this Bench. 8.4 For condoning the delay either in submission of statutory returns or claiming of relief, deduction or rectification of mistake crept in the orders passed etc., the valid reason(s) for such a delay in claiming for such relief should invariable be cited which would facilitate the competent authority to decide the issue on merits. 8.5 However, in the case on hand, we find the assessee s sole reasoning was being ignorance of law . The assessee cannot take sanctuary under the pretext of ignorance of law which prevented it from filing an application under section 154 of the Act for rectification of the order passed more than four years back. In this connection, we would like to point o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer in rejecting the assessee s application under section 154 of the Act, the other ground raised by the assessee becomes redundant and, thus, it has not been addressed to. 9. Looking into the Revenue s cross objection, we find that the Revenue s sole prayer was that since the assessee s rectification application was barred by limitation, the Assessing Officer had rejected the asseseee s application which may be sustained. 9.1 We have since upheld the stand of the Revenue in the assessee s appeal cited supra, the cross objection of the Revenue has become superfluous and, thus, it has not been addressed to. 10. In the result: (i) the assessee s appeal is dismissed; (ii) the Revenue s cross objection is allowed. Pronounced in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
