Tribunal held that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Delay due to improper legal advice should be condoned. A technical view of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay should not be taken if the legal issue has to be decided for other years. Followed Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (HC). A draft assessment order u/s 144C issued with a notice of demand u/s 156 and a s. 271(1)(c) penalty notice is null and void (Eaton Fluid Power Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 512 (Pune) (Trib.) followed, BS Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 346 (Hyd.) (Trib.) distinguished)(ITA No.649/PUN/2013 & 1726/PUN/2014,dt. 29.08.2019)(AY. 2008-09 & 2009-10)
Atlas Copco (India) Limited v. DCIT (2019) 202 TTJ 395 / 184 DTR 73(Pune)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties–Cross objection- Limitation -Delay of 1965 days condoned Order passed without following the mandate laid down u/s. 144C of the Act is quashed–Penalty levied was also quashed. [S. 92CA, 144C,, 201(1) 201(IA), 253(1), 254 (1) ITAT ,R. 11]