TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied for investment allowance available under section 32A. In fact the claim was made by the assessee in its computation of income. Investment allowance was granted by the Assessing Officer including an allowance of Rs. 69,57,919, pertaining to the additions made in the Cement unit at Udaipur. The assessee had sold its Udaipur cement unit to M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited during the relevant previous year except certain machineries which were leased out by the assessee. On this, the Assessing Officer proposed to rectify the assessment order by withdrawing the investment allowance already granted. The assessee submitted a reply to the Assessing Officer that it had no objection for the investment allowance being withdrawn in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n petition is that the appeal has been filed in the light of the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaan Finance P. Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 308 and as the said decision was not available at the time of due date, the delay was caused. The assessee had also filed a petition under section 154 before the Assessing Officer to rectify his order in the light of the order of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaan Finance P. Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 308. In the above circumstances it was the apprehension of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that if the delay was condoned in the said case, it would lead to proliferation of endless litigation with no finality attached to any order. On the basis of the said observation he ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is to be seen that the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the petition filed under section 154 which is again not justified. Apart from the observation of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the proliferation of litigation, he has not otherwise considered the reasonableness of condoning the delay. The delay caused in this case before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was of 180 days. The assessee got the chance to file rectification petition or an appeal as such, because of the subsequent pronouncement of law by the hon ble Supreme Court. The pronouncement was not available on the due date. Therefore the assessee had no occasion to file an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
