Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1744 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - 852 days - bonafide opinion that the directions of ld. CIT was appealable before the CIT(A) - lack of knowledge on the appeal proceedings - HELD THAT:- Considering the decision of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] and reasons for delay in filing the appeal, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before us on the ground that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Revision u/s 263 - difference in sales recorded in financial statements and VAT returns - difference in sales and claim of excise duty - issue not elaborately discussed in the order passed u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- We find that during the course of assessment proceedings, AO has asked for the information relating to sales and accordingly, assessee has filed the reasons for difference in sales recorded in financial statements and VAT returns. The same was verified and accepted by the AO, even though, he has not discussed elaborately in the order passed u/s 143(3) We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court, respectively, came to the conclusion that CIT cannot direct the AO to conduct further enquiry to verify without examining the aspect himself. See DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD [2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT]and DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LIMITED [2010 (2) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee AO disallowed the difference in sales and claim of excise duty, with regard to difference in sales, assessee has already explained before the AO and also submitted reconciliation statement before us which we found to be in order. With regard to excise duty, it is the method of accounting adopted by the assessee regularly as per the guidance note issued by ICAI with regard to valuation of excisable finished goods. We find that even on merits, both the disallowances are not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
|