Triton Valves Ltd, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore

ITA 1629/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0409 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect; Condonation of delay; Capital expenditure; Ignorance of law
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 234B; 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1629 / BANG/20 14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) M/S.TRITON VALVES LTD. NO.22, SUNRISE CHAMBERS, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560042. APPELLANT PAN: AAACT 6671 P VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 12(4), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR P.K.SRIHARI, ADDL.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 14/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /04/2016 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - III [CIT(A)], BANGAL ORE, DATED 8/1/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 2 OF 10 2. THE APPELLANT RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - III, BANGALORE PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 T O THE EXTENT WHICH IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE TAXED OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS. 6 ,50,72,050/ - ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.45,96,066/ - IN RESPECT OF EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING S TOCK OF RAW MATERIALS (CONSISTING OF A SUM OF RS.28,22,607/ - CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS DEDUCTIBLE AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.17,73,459/ - HELD TO BE INCLUDIBLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER), ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CHANGED THE METHOD OF VALUING THE STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS TO EXCLUDE EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT THEREOF TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS PRESCRIBED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.28,22,607/ - WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HENCE OFFERED TO INCOME IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FURTHER F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL VALUE OF EXCISE DUTY ON THE CLOSING STOCK AND THE OPENING STOCK OF RS.17,73,459/ - IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADDED SINCE ON CORRECT AND PROPER APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A, THE INCLUSION OF DUTIES AND T AXES TO PURCHASES AND INVENTORIES ESSENTIALLY RESULTS IN TAX NEUTRAL EFFECT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT IS TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK VALUE AS PER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT BUT AT THE SA ME TIME FAILED TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A IN ITS ENTIRETY WHICH REQUIRES THAT PURCHASES ALSO BE VALUED INCLUSIVE OF DUTIES AND TAXES THEREON AND THUS DENIED THE APPELLANT THE CORRESPONDING COST OF MATERIAL INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN SO FAR A S EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT RELATES TO THE CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS. ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 3 OF 10 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT EVEN IF EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT IS TO BE HELD TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MA TERIAL, THE SAME OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT AS LONG AS THE SAME ARE PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. 8. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE, AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. 10. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3. BRIEFLY FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPEL LANT - ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF AUTOMOBILE TYRES AND TUBE VALVES, CORES AND ACCESSORIES. RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 201 0 - 11 ON 13/ 10/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,50,72,046/ - . AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 12(4), BANGALORE [HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO ], AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,02,17,890/ - VIDE ORDER DATED 25/2/2013 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [ THE ACT FOR SHORT]. DISPARITY BETWEEN RETURN ED INCOME AND THE ASSESSED INCOME IS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONS OF RS.45,96,066/ - ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 4 OF 10 STOCK AND OPENING ST OCK BY INCLUDING THE ELEMENT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID ON THE STOCK REMAINING AS ON 1/4/20 09 AND 31/3/2010 AND ADDITION OF RS.5,10,367/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE HOLDING TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 THAT EXCISE DUTY WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK FOR INCOME - TAX PURPOSE EVEN THOUGH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXCISE DUTY WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK. HOWEVER, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ONWARDS, THIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS CHANGED WHEREBY EXCISE DUTY ELEMENT WAS NOT INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK FOR INCOME - TAX PURPOSE. AS A RESULT OF THIS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.28,22 ,607/ - , BEING EXCISE DUTY INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK FOR EARLIER YEARS AND OFFERED TO TAX WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IN THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31/3/2010, OF EXCISE DUTY OF R S.45,66,064/ - WAS INCLUDED. OUT OF THIS , EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT INCLUDED IN THE OPENING STOCK WAS RS.28,22,607/ - AND IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.17,73,459/ - DOES NOT WARRANT ADDITION AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME IN TERMS OF SEC.43B OF THE ACT. THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE TURNED DOWN BY THE AO AND BROUGHT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.45,96,066/ - INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.145A OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS DISAL LOWANCE OF ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 5 OF 10 TRAVEL EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,10,367/ - , ASSESSEE - COMPANY ACCEPTED THAT FOREIGN TRAVEL WAS UNDERTAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH PROCUREMENT OF MACHINERY AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL. HOWEVER, IT CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION ON SUCH DI SALLOWANCE AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 8/1/2014 DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT CLOSING STOCK SHOULD BE VALUED B Y INCLUDING THE BENEFIT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID IN TERMS OF SED.145A OF THE ACT AND IN THIS CONNECTION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS (215 TAXMAN 126). IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A ) THAT SE.145A STARTS WITH NON - OBSTANTE CLAUSE THEREBY MAKING THE PROVISIONS MANDATORY. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE HELD TO BE CAPITAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THAT ASS ESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHING DETAILS OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. AT THE OUTSET, WE MUST MENTION THAT T HERE IS A DELAY OF 226 DAYS IN FILING PRESENT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAS FILED A PETITION PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE PETITION READS AS UNDER: ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 6 OF 10 THE APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS FOLLOWS - 1. AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 WAS PASSED ON 08.01.2014 IN THE CASE OF TH E APPELLANT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - ILL, BANGALORE (FOR SHORT 'THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)') RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 11.03.2014. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 12(4), BANGALORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. THERE WERE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT OF RS.45,96,066/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THIS ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01.2014. 3. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ADVISED BY THE EARLIER COUNSEL THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCLUSION OF EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT IN THE CLOSING ST OCK OF RAW MATERIALS WOULD ONLY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WOULD BE AVAILABLE AS DEDUCTION IN THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE OUTCOME OF ITS APP EAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DOES NOT PREJUDICIALLY IMPACT ITS TAX LIABILITY OVER THE YEARS. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLANT APPROACHED THE PRESENT COUNSEL FOR ADVICE ON CERTAIN TAX MATTERS. THE PRESENT COUNSEL WHILE VERIFYING THE PAPER S EXAMINED AND STUDIED THE ASSESSMENT AND APPEAL RECORDS FOR EARLIER YEARS AND ENQUIRED WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE APPELLANT EXPRESSED THAT ITS EARLIER COUNSEL HAD ADVISED NOT TO FILE AN APPEAL FOR REASONS STATED IN PARA 3 ABOVE AND THUS THE APPELLANT DID NOT PREFER AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 7 OF 10 INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE APPELLANT WAS ADVISED BY THE PRESENT COUNSEL, THAT THERE IS MATE RIAL IMPACT ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT AS THE ADDITION MADE IS OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT AND IS IN THE CONTEXT OF CHANGE OF VALUATION METHOD OF CLOSING STOCK WHICH IS AN ONE - TIME OCCURRENCE ONLY AND HENCE THE TAX EFFECT WOULD NOT BE REVERSED IN THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT WAS ADVISED TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SEEKING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING TH E APPEAL. 6. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ADVICE WAS OBTAINED BY THE PRESENT COUNSEL, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME I.E. WITHIN 3 DAYS, ALL THE EFFORTS WERE MADE TO FILE THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APP EALS) BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON 22. 12.2014. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WELL IN TIME I.E. THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO HAVE FILED THIS STATUTORY APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) I.E. ON OR BEFORE 10.05.2014 SINCE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ONLY ON 11.03.2014 AND BY THE TIME THE APPELLANT SOUGHT THE PR ESEN T COUNSEL'S ADVISE AN OPINION IN FILING THIS APPEAL, THERE AROSE 226 DAYS' DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 8. IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON BLE TRIBUNAL TAKES A LENIENT AND COMPASSIONATE VIEW AND CONDONE THE DELAY OF 226 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - III, BANGALORE PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND HEAR THE SAME ON MERITS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. 9. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT IF THIS APPL ICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NOT ALLOWED, THE APPELLANT WOULD BE PUT TO GREAT HARDSHIP AND IRREPARABLE INJURY AND ON THE OTHER HAND NO HARDSHIP OR INJURY WOULD ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 8 OF 10 BE CAUSED TO THE RESPONDENT IF THIS APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DE LAY IS ALLOWED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST.KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS SMT. NIRMALA DEVI AND OTHER S 118 ITR 507. FURTHER THE APPELLANT RELIES ON ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA KRISHNA RAI VS. ALLAHABAD BANK & OTHERS [2000] 9 SUPREME COURT CASES 733. 6. THU, T HE APPELLANT SEEKS TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE PR ESENT APPEAL THAT IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG ADVICE GIVEN BY THE EARLIER COUNSEL THAT NO APPEAL WAS FILED IN TIME. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER REVEALED SOURCE OF SUCH ADVICE NOR TRIED TO EXPLAIN DELAY OF EACH DAY . THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF SPPORTHI SADAN CONVENT VS. CIT (68 TAXMANN.CO. 245)(KAR) ON IDENTICAL FACTS HELD THAT THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED AS IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE AND THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT REVEALED SOURCE OF ILL - ADVIC E GIVEN. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD IN PARAT.7 TO TELL AS FOLLOWS: 7. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHEREIN THE APPELLANT IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON, WHO MAY NOT KNOW THE REPERCUSSION IN LAW. FURTHER, IT IS THE SPECIFIC CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE TRUST WAS UNDER BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT REG ISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WAS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT AND SUCH IMPRESSION WAS BASED ON ADVISE. BUT, NONETHELESS, THE APPELLANT NEITHER CHOSE TO REVEAL THE SOURCE OF SUCH ADVICE NOR REPLIED TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY A REITERATION OF GROUNDS URGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 9 OF 10 THOUGH THE COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT OFFERED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS SOUGHT FO R BY THE TRIBUNAL, NO TIME WAS GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. NO SPECIFIC GROUND IS URGED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE PLEADINGS EITHER IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OF FACTS OR AFFIDAVIT TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH CONTENTION. 9. IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE. WE MAY USEFULLY REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. V. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. [1975] 4 SCC 378, WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS FOLLOWS: BUT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE HIGH COURT ON THE OTHER TWO GROUNDS. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE IN 1949. THE WRIT PETITION WAS FILED IN 1 956. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR THIS LONG DELAY IS THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION AND LIE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE SAME AFTER THE DECISIO N OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UP. V. MODI FOOD PRODUCTS LID. EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS DEEMED TO KNOW THE LAW OF THE LAND. THE COURTS MERELY INTERPRET THE LAW AND DO NOT MAKE LAW. IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR NOT TAKING APPROPRIATE STEPS WITHIN LIMITATION. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT KNOW THE TRUE LEGAL POSITION IS NOT ONE THAT CAN BE ACCEPTED IN LAW....... 10. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE OU T ANY GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 997 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE SEE NO ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FAILS AND STANDS DISMISSED. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S WADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. VS. GOVERNMENT OF UP (1975) 4 SCC 378 THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE AND THEREFORE, DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL CANNOT BE CONDONED ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE OF LAW. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE NOT REVEALED THE ILL - ADVICE NOR ITA NO . 1629 /BANG/201 4 PAGE 10 OF 10 PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE AVERMENTS MADE IN AFFIDAVIT. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS DISMISSED . 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH OF APRIL , 2016 S D/ - S D/ - (VIJAY PAL RAO) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE D A T E D : 29 /04/2016 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) - II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, IT AT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE