TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to benefit by resorting the alleged delay then the technical considerations should give the way to cause of substantial justice and, therefore, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the expression "sufficient cause". When the assessee was not going to take a benefit by filing the appeal belatedly then the explanation of the assessee has a sufficient cause cannot be doubted. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the assessee explained a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Addition made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of the average investment - Held 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. DCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 ₹ 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 26.12.2008, assessing total income u/s 115JB at ₹ 294.51 crores. During the completion of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D at ₹ 12.77 crores. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer proposed to increase the disallowance u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 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) (167 ITR 471). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that the explanation submitted by the assessee was not found to be satisfactory for condonation of delay, therefore, the CIT(A) has rejected the same. He has relied upon the findings of CIT(A). 6. Having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 observation and finding in this matter shall have no bearing on the merits of the issue of disallowance u/s 14A de hors the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
