TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer authority and should not be deprived of the same on technical issues. In cases of MST Katiji Ors. [ 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Apex Court has held that the legislature has conferred power to condone the delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matter on merits and the expression sufficient cause as provided in Section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner so that the ends of justice is served. The court observed that everyday s delay must be explained does not imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] dated 26.10.2021for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The only issue raised in ground no. 1 to 5 in the grounds of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of the assessee thereby not deciding the appeal on merit. 3. The facts in brief the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Specialized Refractories at its facility situated at new area of Kandla Special Economic Zone. The said unit is eligible for exemption u/s 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) @ 100% of profits and gains derived from exports for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - got restricted to 2,07,72,302/- due automatic adjustment of brought forward losses from earlier years of Rs. 4,41,02,986/-. 4. The assessee challenged the intimation/order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing an appeal on 13.02.2018 with a delay of 187 days. The assessee moved a condonation petition before the Ld. CIT(A) for condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) however dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 7.7.2017 was sent through e-mail on 11.07.2017 and the appeal should have been filed on or before 10.08.2017. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the letter dated 1.12.2016 could not be considered as rectification petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct resulting into exemption u/s 10AA of the Act being restricted to Rs. 2,01,72,302/- instead of Rs. 6,45,41,233/-. Thereafter the counsel of the assessee filed a communication dated 1.12.2016 intimating the AO about this wrong adjustment of brought forward losses against the profits eligible for exemption u/s 10AA of the Act and requested the AO to do the needful to allow the assessee s claim of exemption of Rs. 6,45,41,233/- but in the meantime the return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 7.7.2017 by CPC, Bangalore wherein the exemption u/s 10AA of the Act was restricted to Rs. 2,07,72,302/-. The intimation was sent through e-mail on 11.07.2017 whereas the appeal was filed on 13.02.2018 with a delay of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matter on merits and the expression sufficient cause as provided in Section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner so that the ends of justice is served. The court observed that everyday s delay must be explained does not imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. The court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee is not benefitted in any manner by filing the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nafter. In the case of CIT Another vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2017] 391 ITR 274 (SC) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that in case of undertaking in free trade zone which is the export oriented undertaking, the deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect of profits from the unit in the said zone has to be allowed while computing the income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computing total income under Chapter VI . In other words , the Hon ble Court has held that the deduction u/s 10A of the Act is to be allowed against the profit and only thereafter the brought forward losses and income from other hands and the provisions for set off and carry forward contained in Section s 70,72 74 would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
