ITA NO. 2659 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] ITA NO. 265 9 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 0 9 - 10 PANCHVATI SHIP BREAKERS, ..... .......... .APPELLANT LATI BAZAR, BHAVNAGAR. [PAN: AA EPF 3358 P ] VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, BHAVNAGAR. .. ......... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY TUSHAR P. HEMANI FOR THE A PPELLANT JAMES KURIAN FOR THE R E SPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 03 .01.2017 ORDER PRONOUNC ED ON : 29 .03.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 26 TH AUGUST 201 3 , IN THE MATTER OF PROCESSING OF INCOME TAX RETURN UNDER SECTIO N 143(1) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 10 . 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS : - 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT CONDONING DELAY OF 479 DAYS IN FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE INTIMATION O R DER PASSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT BY THE LD. ACIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER. 2. THE ID. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE LD. ACIT, CPC WHILE PROCESSING RETURN OF INCOME HAD MADE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1,22,13,770/ - (RS. 1,21,94,7 00/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INC OME TAX PROVISION + RS.19,070/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FBT PROVISION ) WHICH WAS ALREADY ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL ITA NO. 2659 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PAGE 2 OF 2 INCOME OF THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF, WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,22,13,770/ - . 3. THE LD . CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT INITIALLY THE APPELLANT HAD FILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BEFORE THE CP C AGAINST SUCH MISTAKE, HOWEVER, NO ORDER WAS PASSED RECTIFYING THE SAID MISTAKE, AND BECAUSE OF THIS DELAY OF 479 DAYS WAS OCCURRED IN FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT (A) . 4. THE LD . CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF ADOPTION OF ALTERNATE REMEDY TO GET THE APPARENT MISTAKES RECTIFIED THROUGH THE RECTIFICATION ORDER, WHICH ULTIMATELY COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED, AND ACCORDINGLY, THER E WAS A GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 5. THE LD . CIT ( A ) THOUGH HAS STATISTICALLY ALLOWED THE SIMILAR GROUND RAISED IN THE A PPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SAME GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE INTIMATION ORDER PASSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE IN MAKING DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,22,13,770/ - . 6. THE LD . C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD . ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234 B/C/D OF THE ACT. 3. HOWEVER, THESE GRIEVANCES ARE ACADEMIC AS ON NOW SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THESE CLAIMS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE SAME YEAR, AND THE MATTER RESTS THERE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION, GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF MAR CH , 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 29 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 7 . PBN/* COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4 ) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD