Appellant(Assessee v. Respondents(Revenue

tIN THE HON'BLE HIGB COORT OE' CHHATTISGaKHAT BIIASPOR=llylslS1'?1 B't«?04.JiVSSBUii"Tax Case No^^of 2014AP^ELIANT:^-SunitaFinleaseLtd.,1^'2/509ChiruldihWardOpp..RajkumarCollege,^}W^yRaipur(C.G.)-."^ "'•yyVERSUS.,..°••"<-AssistantCommissioner^.ofIncomeTaxCircle1(2)Raipur(C.G.) Wemo of appeal under Section 21 ^of the Interestx<^Taac Act 1974 read with Section 260-A of the Inctaae^'Taac Act 1961. 's's'sa,^-y<fc-"'_'""^.^S,fw^^9^ '!?-i»vi!;^1.ih."a9 /,»n<\~^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURDIVISION BENCH CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRASINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J TaxCase No. 27 oF 2011Sunita Finlease Ltd. APPELLANT(Assessee) VERSUS RESPONDENTS(Revenue) Assistant Commissioner oFlncome Tax Tax Case No. 04 oF 2014Sunita Finlease Ltd., APPELLANT (Assessee) VERSUS Assistant Commissioner oF Income Tax RESPQNDENIS(Revenue) APPEALS UNDERSECTION 210F THE INTERESTTAXACT. 1974READ WITH SECTION 260-A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 Appearance: Shri Ashok Patil, counsel for the Appellant.Sbri Anand Dadaria, counsel For the Respondent. JUDGEMENT(14th July, 2014) --."' 1. These two tax cases are against: the order oF the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,NagpurBench,Nagpur(theTribunal)dated14.12.2006dismissing the appealoF M/s SunitaFjnleaseLimited,Raipur(fcheAssessee) in respect of the assessment years (the AYs) 1997-98 and1998-99. THE FACTS 2. The'Assessee does trading of chemicals as well as earns income Fromhire purchase finance charges. Itwas issued notices undersection 10 oFthe Interest Act,[1974](the[Act)][ to][ show][ cause][ as][ to][ why][ the][ hire]purchase Rnancechargesmay not be treated as chargeable interesl:under the Act. 3.The Assessing OfRcer (the AO) passed bwo separate orders Forseparate assessment years on 29.01.2002 holding that the hire purchaseFinance charges are chargeable interest under the Act. /,K V; 4. Aggrieved by Ehe aForesaid orders,l:he Assessee Filed two separiappealson22.01.2004beforetheCommissioner ofIncomeTax(Appeals), Raipur (the ClT-A). These appealswere barred by 678 and 675days and were dismissed on 26.07.2006 as barred by time.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order oF the CIT-A, the Assessee Rled twoseparate appeals before the Tribunal. In these two appeals the Findingrecorded by the CIT-A was upheld and Ehe appeals were dismissed on'14.12.2006. 6. Aggrieved by theaforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Assessee insteadof Rling two separate appeals, has filed only one appeal, namely, TaxCase- 27 of 2011 . There is delay oF 35 days in Rling this tax case. /,K V; 4. Aggrieved by Ehe aForesaid orders,l:he Assessee Filed two separiappealson22.01.2004beforetheCommissioner ofIncomeTax(Appeals), Raipur (the ClT-A). These appealswere barred by 678 and 675days and were dismissed on 26.07.2006 as barred by time.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order oF the CIT-A, the Assessee Rled twoseparate appeals before the Tribunal. In these two appeals the Findingrecorded by the CIT-A was upheld and Ehe appeals were dismissed on'14.12.2006. 6. Aggrieved by theaforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Assessee insteadof Rling two separate appeals, has filed only one appeal, namely, TaxCase- 27 of 2011 . There is delay oF 35 days in Rling this tax case. 7. Tax Case- 27 of 201 1 was in respect of both the AYs.In Fact, therewere fcwo Eax appeals beFore the Tribunal and theAssessee ought tohave Rled two separate tax cases in this court. Considering this aspect,the Assessee has filed the second tax case, namely, Tax Case- 04 oF 2014.There is a delay oF 241 1 days in Filing this tax case.8. The counsel. for the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of The counsel. for the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of counsel. for the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of for the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of was permitted to correcl: the memo of permitted to correcl: the memo of to correcl: the memo of correcl: the memo of the memo of memo of ofthe appeals and he has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 appeals and he has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 and he has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 he has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 2011 For the AY 1997-98 For the AY 1997-98 the AY 1997-98 AY 1997-98 1997-98whereas Tax Case-04 of 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. Tax Case-04 of 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. Case-04 of 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. of 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. has been confined to the AY 1998-99. been confined to the AY 1998-99. confined to the AY 1998-99. to the AY 1998-99. the AY 1998-99. AY 1998-99. 1998-99.9. Considering Ehe fact that in the eariier tax case there was only 35 daysdelay and it is because oF this the separate appeal could not be Filed, thedelay in Rling both Ehe appeals is condoned and they are heard for'admission; 8. The counsel. for the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of The counsel. for the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of counsel. for the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of for the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of the Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of Assessee was permitted to correcl: the memo of was permitted to correcl: the memo of permitted to correcl: the memo of to correcl: the memo of correcl: the memo of the memo of memo of ofthe appeals and he has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 appeals and he has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 and he has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 he has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 has confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 confined Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 Tax Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 Case- 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 27 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 of 2011 For the AY 1997-98 2011 For the AY 1997-98 For the AY 1997-98 the AY 1997-98 AY 1997-98 1997-98whereas Tax Case-04 of 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. Tax Case-04 of 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. Case-04 of 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. of 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. 2014 has been confined to the AY 1998-99. has been confined to the AY 1998-99. been confined to the AY 1998-99. confined to the AY 1998-99. to the AY 1998-99. the AY 1998-99. AY 1998-99. 1998-99. THE DECISION 10. We have heard counsel Fbrthe parties. 11. There was delay oF about two years in Filing the appeals before theCIT-A; It was said that it was because oF the mistake of Ehe charteredaccountant that there was a delay in Filing Ehe appeal. However, no suchaFfidavit was Rled. Nimmi 12.The CIT-A has recorded a finding that the same chartered accountantstill continues to wdrk with the Assessee.Before this court:, time wasgranted to the Assessee to File an aFFidavit to show why delay wascaused. No such aFFidavit has been Filed. 13.There is nothing on the record to show as to why there was delay inRling the appeal. 14. In view oF above, there is no illegality in the Finding recorded by theCIT-A and aFFirmed by the Tribunal that there was no suFRcient cause tocondone the delay. 15. The tax-cases have no merit. They are dismissed.1[ sd/~]^ChiefJustice Sd/-Pritinker DiwakerJudge ^<i