Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1801 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay filling Rectification application - whether the assessee has a good case of condonation of delay in filing the appeal late by about 1305 days? - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors [2010 (6) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] had considered the case of delay of 90 days and had held that in case where the delay was not huge, the same could have been condoned without putting the respondent to harm or prejudices. Applying the above principle, we dismiss the condonation application filed by assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on preliminary issue itself. When there is any mistake apparent from record, the same may be rectified, when it is either pointed out by the assessee or comes to the knowledge of the authority concerned. In the present set of facts, the assessee had filed an application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the additions . The first addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of Page No.122B of Bundle No.A-9 of Party No.A-12 relating to Assessment Year 2000 - 01. The said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order passed under Section 154 of the Act. The second addition which was made the assessee had not filed the return of income for the said Assessment Year and only on the basis of trial balance net profit was worked out on ₹ 3,39,073/-. The assessee claims that the said net profit is subsumed in the profit of ₹ 16,20,674/- and once the same is deleted then no other addition is to be made. Second plea raised by the assessee was that the perusal of the document itself would reflect that it is part of trial balance and the said figure is shown as the opening balance as on 01.04.2000. It was also stressed by the Learned Authorised Representative for the assessee that the documents on the basis of which the said addition was not made available to the assessee, though, repeated requests were made to the Assessing Officer in this regard. The scope of rectification is limited to correct any mistake which is apparent from the record. The submissions made by the assessee do not point out the said apparent mistake which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. We find no merit in the various contentions made by the assessee in this regard, since the scope of rectification under Section 154 of the Act is very limited. Accordingly, we dismiss the claim of the assessee. Upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we dismiss the appeal raised by the assessee.
|