9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The other appeal is related to the appellate order passed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 2. There was a delay of 813 days in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) challenging the assessment order passed on 28-12-2010 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Ld First appellate authority, however, refused to condone the delay on the reasoning that there was no compelling reason for the delay. Aggrieved the assessee has filed appeal before us. 3. The assessing officer re-opened the assessment of the year under consideration and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15.02.2013, wherein he again made the addition relating to "Product Development Expenditure", which had earlier been made in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") is a Company engaged in the manufacture of goods. Autoliv India Private Ltd is engaged in the business of design. manufacture and marketing of occupant restraint systems for automobiles. Essentially, the company manufactures-automobile safety belts and sells them to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). 2. Autoliv India is a subsidiary of Autöliv AB Sweden, Autoliv Safety Systems India Private Lid (seatbelt segment) was incorporated in 1992 in India as a joint venture between Autoliv AB Sweden and IFB Automotive Seating and Systems Pvt. Ltd. (1FB ASSL) India. During the year 2008, Autoliv AB, Sweden increased its shareholding in Autoliv Safety Systems India Private Ltd. to 100%, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2007-08 was concluded on 28/12 2010 by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12, Kolkata who among other additions added a sum of Rs. 58,98,918/-by way of product development expenses. The learned assessing authority also failed to give credit for tax deducted at source of Rs. 12,57,083/-. A first appeal would normally have been filed by the 27th of January 2011. 6. The appellant company however filed two rectification applications on 7th March 2011. The applications have not been disposed of till date. On the other hand the assessment was reopened on 27/03/2012. After granting the appellants all of personal hearing, the Ld, Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax passed the reassessment Order dated 15.02.2013 whereby he has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application within such Period." 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause justice being defeated. As against tins when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay; every second's delay? The doctrine be applied in a rational common-sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ." 7. We notice that there was restructuring of the assessee company in the form of amalgamation. Consequently, the registered office of the company has been shifted from Kolkatta to New Delhi and thereafter from New Delhi to Bangalore. From the chart furnished by the assessee, we notice that the re-structuring process was going on from 2009 to 2014 in the form of amalgamation and change of address. We notice that the assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28- 12-2010 by the Addl. CIT, Kolkatta, wherein the AO, inter alia, disallowed the Product Development Expenses. According to the assessee, credit for correct amount of TDS was also not given. It is stated that the assessee has filed two rectification petitions on 07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omote the cause of justice. Accordingly we are of the view that the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. However, the same shall be at a cost. Accordingly we impose a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) upon the assessee which shall be paid to the credit of the Income tax Department as "other fees" on or before 29-02-2010. Subject to the payment of above cost, we condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). Since the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds urged on merits, we deem it proper to restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh. 10. The other appeal filed by the assessee relates to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, which is numbered as ITA 594 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
