M/s. Cochin Frozen Foods P. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(3), Ernakulam
[Citation -2016-LL-0922-13]

Citation 2016-LL-0922-13
Appellant Name M/s. Cochin Frozen Foods P. Ltd.
Respondent Name The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(3), Ernakulam
Court ITAT-Cochin
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/09/2016
Assessment Year 2002-03
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags condonation of delay • good and sufficient cause • admissibility of deduction
Bot Summary: PAN: AAACC 8506G Assessee by Shri K.P. Paulson, CA Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/09/2016 Date of pronouncement 22/09/2016 ORDER Per B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals of the assessee arise from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kochi dated 20/05/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03 to 2004-05. The grounds of appeal in the present case are identical. However we proceed to take up the grounds of appeal of the assessee as in I.T.A. No. 381/Coch/2014 as under:- 2 I.T.A. No.381-383/Coch/2014 1. Hon ble Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) erred in law and facts by failing to note that the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court/High Court which changes the position, the interpretation, or the understanding of law, constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing the appeal where it is established that on the date of receipt of the impugned order, the filing of an appeal would have been an empty formality having regard to the position of law then prevailing as decided in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs. VENKATARAMANA CHUDAVA MURUMURA MERCHANT 159 ITR 59. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the above grounds of appeal. The issues in the present appeals are identical to the issues in the assessee s appeal iin I.T.A. No.380/Coch/2014 which has been decided by me on even date and therefore, my order in I.T.A. No. 380/Coch/2014 of even date shall be identically applicable in the present appeals except the amount which will differ in the present appeals according to the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A). In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.381-383/Coch/2014 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/s. Cochin Frozen Foods P. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd., IV/475, Arookutty Ferry Income-tax, Circle-1(3), Road, Aroor P.O., Ernakulam. Alappuzha-683 534. [PAN: AAACC 8506G] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri K.P. Paulson, CA Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/09/2016 Date of pronouncement 22/09/2016 ORDER Per B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals of assessee arise from order of Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kochi dated 20/05/2014 for assessment year 2002-03 to 2004-05. 2. grounds of appeal in present case are identical. However we proceed to take up grounds of appeal of assessee as in I.T.A. No. 381/Coch/2014 as under:- 2 I.T.A. No.381-383/Coch/2014 1. Hon ble Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) erred in law and facts by failing to note that subsequent decision of Supreme Court/High Court which changes position, interpretation, or understanding of law, constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing appeal where it is established that on date of receipt of impugned order, filing of appeal would have been empty formality having regard to position of law then prevailing as decided in case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs. VENKATARAMANA CHUDAVA & MURUMURA MERCHANT (1986) 159 ITR 59 (AP). 2. order of Hon ble CIT(Appeals) is opposed to law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of case insofar as it confirms disallowance of deduction u/s. 80HHC without considering decision of Hon ble Supreme Court of India in case of TOPMAN EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2012) 342 ITR 49. 3. appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of above grounds of appeal. 3. issues in present appeals are identical to issues in assessee s appeal iin I.T.A. No.380/Coch/2014 which has been decided by me on even date and therefore, my order in I.T.A. No. 380/Coch/2014 of even date shall be identically applicable in present appeals except amount which will differ in present appeals according to orders of Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A). Thus all grounds of assessee in all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 3 I.T.A. No.381-383/Coch/2014 4. In result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in open court on 22-09-2016 sd/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Kochi Dated: 22nd September, 2016 GJ Copy to: 1. M/s. Cochin Frozen Foods P. Ltd., IV/475, Arookutty Ferry Road, Aroor P.O., Alappuzha-683 534. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(3), Ernakulam. 3. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-V, Kochi. 4. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Cochin Bench, Cochin. 6. Guard File. By Order (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., Cochin M/s. Cochin Frozen Foods P. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(3), Ernakulam
Report Error