TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt error in the order of the CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- The power of rectification u/s 154 can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Since no evidence is available before the CIT(A) when the appeal of the assessee was decided on 7.2.2013. Orders in the case of other co-owners have come up subsequently on 14.4.2016. Therefore, on that date no apparent error was committed by the ld.CIT(A). To our mind, there was no material which can demonstrate that order of the ld.CIT(A) was suffering from an apparent error. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee - Appeals of the assessee are dismissed. - ITA No. 2083 And 2084/Ahd/2017, ITA No. 2085 And 2086/Ahd/2017, ITA No. 2087 And 2088/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2019 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Surendra Modiani, AR For the Revenue : Shri B.L. Meena, Sr.DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the appellate order was held in favour of the assessee, therefore w e request your Honour to accept the appeal and condone the delay, Thanking You, Yours Faithfully Sd/- Shri Manish kumarpal Shah (Authorized Signatory) 4. Assessees have filed their respective affidavits, and all the affidavits are also verbatim same. Therefore, for the facility of reference, we take note of the affidavit of Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah, which reads as under: Affidavit For Condonation Of delay in filing the Appeal No. ITA 2083/Ahd/2017 for Assessment year 2009-10 1. Manish Kumarpal Shah, Address: C/o. Trans Indiana Mfg. Co., Mahajan Lane, Raopura, Vadodara-390002 do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1. That I preferred an Appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-lll, Baroda for Assessment year2009-10 vide Appeal No.CAB/llI/73/11-12 dated 07-02-2013. 2. The order was received by me on 25-03-2013 wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO, and if such request was being made, then AO will refer the matter to the DVO for determination of fair market value on the date of sale. Appellants before me have never raised any objection nor made any prayer for a reference to the DVO. They accepted the computation. Their appeals were decided on 7.2.2013. For a long time of 5 years, they have did not challenge the order of the ld.CIT(A) in their case. They have filed the present appeals by stating co-owners have disputed the valuation and matter was referred to the DVO, who has valued the property at ₹ 55,94,230/- against the actual sale consideration of ₹ 54,00,000/-. The assessees have come up before the Tribunal with prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section 50C, the same yardstick deserves to be adopted in their cases. 6. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Krishnamurthy (supra). It reads as under: Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y merit in their applications and therefore, all the applications for condonation of delay are rejected. Consequently, the appeals of the assessees are also dismissed. 9. As far as ITA No.2084/Ahd/2017 is concerned, it is an appeal against rejection of the assessee s application under section 154 of the Act. The plea of the assessee is that capital gain be assessed in the hands of the assessee on the basis of DVO s report called for in the cases of other co-owners. The ld.First Appellate Authority dismissed application of the assessee on the ground that no such material is available on the record of the assessee and there is no apparent error in the order of the ld.CIT(A). 10. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. The power of rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Since no evidence is avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
