9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in not admitting the appeal filed by the appellant against the order under section 154 passed by the assessing officer. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) ought have condoned the delay in filing of an appeal. 2. Without prejudice to above, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the notice issued under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer when Rule 80 was inapplicable to the assessment year under appeal and consequently erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,88,75,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 80." 2. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 26.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed the present appeal which is belated by 2 and half months. The CIT(A) did not accept the explanation of the assessee and rejected the condonation petition. 4. Before us, the Ld. Senior Counsel has submitted that the assessee has explained the cause of delay before the CIT(A) that there was a confusion regarding the separate appeal against the order passed u/s 154 on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D when the same issue was already raised by the assessee against the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3), therefore, there was a delay which was explained by the assessee. He has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of 2 and half months of filing the appeal before CIT(A). 7. Ground no. 2 is regarding addition made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of the average investment. 8. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that Rule 8D is not applicable for the A.Y. 2008-09 in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81. Accordingly, the addition made by Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s 154 is not sustainable and the same is deleted. We make it clear that the issue of disallowance u/s 14A is pending in the appeal against the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and, therefore, our observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
