9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.12.2011 and 25.06.2012 respectively for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. First, we may take-up appeal of assessee in ITA No. 4665/Mum/2017. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to consider the reasons advanced by the appellant for the delay, in its affidavit, in their right perspective. 3. The appellant submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeal) failed to consider that professional fees amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/- paid by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.01.2012 requesting the Assessing Officer to treat the professional fees of Rs. 7,50,000/- as capital expenditure and allow depreciation on the same. The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 25.06.2012 rejected the assessee's request for rectification under Section 154 of the Act holding that the said request of the assessee cannot be treated as 'mistake apparent from records' and, therefore, the same cannot be taken up in proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed under Section 143(3) and Section 154 of the Act, the assessee preferred a single appeal before the CIT(A) against both the orders on 14.08.2012. In the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), it was pointed out that two separate appeals were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. In the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed under Section 154 of the Act, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and held that there was no mistake apparent from record which can be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, assessee is in appeal before us against the two orders of CIT(A). 4. Before us, the Learned Representative for the assessee referred to the affidavit filed with CIT(A) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or willful. The decision to file rectification application under Section 154 of the Act instead of appeal was taken by the Chief Accountant as he felt that it would be more easier, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unreasonable and thus, the appeal of the assessee should not be allowed, and that the relief sought by the assessee was not permissible within the limited scope of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ground of appeal nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee pertains to condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atlas Copco (India) Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1669/Pun/2014 wherein the Tribunal has discussed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others reported as 2002 AIR 1201 with respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 8. In the present case also, there was no negligence or inaction on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal. It was only the advice of the Chief Accountant based on which assessee acted upon. However, on being pointed out by the CIT(A) that two separate appeals need to be filed, the assessee without further delay filed the appeal against the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The circumstances leading to delay in filing the appeal does not reveal that the act of the assessee is intentional or that there was some other motive behind in delay in filing the appeal. 9. Thus, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram NathSahu and Others (supra) followed by the Pune Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any right or benefit of enduring nature has been created by incurrence of the expenditure. From the nature of expenditure incurred, we find that the expenditure is not incurred for the acquisition of know-how; it is incurred only for the purpose of valuation of the know-how. Admittedly, the expenditure in isolation has not created any asset nor has it added any value in the know-how of the assessee, benefit of which can be said to have accrued to the assessee over a longer period. Further, valuation of know-how was in the course of business of the assessee as know-how pertained to the business of the assessee. Further, assessee has placed before us the detailed valuation report obtained by him for valuation of know-how and the copies of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
