MUKAND COLD STORAGE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of I.T.A. Nos. 266 and 267 of 2013, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in both the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from I.T.A. No. 266 of 2013. I.T.A. No. 266 of 2013 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), against the order dated June 1, 2010, annexure A. 5 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh in I.T.A. No. 608/CHD/2009 for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy as narrated in I.T.A. No. 266 of 2013 are that the appellant is a partnership concern based at Yamuna Nagar. It is engaged in running cold storage. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,240 which was processed and taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated December 30, 2005, annexure A. 1 made an addition of Rs. 11,00,000 in the hands of the firm while accepting the loss of Rs. 5,240 as claimed. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Vide order dated December 19, 2007, annexure A. 2, the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Still not satisfied, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated July 31, 2008, annexure A. 3, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal of the asses-see afresh in accordance with law. Vide order dated March 13, 2009, annexure A. 4, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) again dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition. The assessee again approached the Tribunal by filing appeal. Vide order dated June 1, 2010, annexure A. 5, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal for recalling the order dated June 1, 2010. The said application was also dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated April 16, 2013, annexure A. 6. Hence, the present appeals by the assessee.

(3.) There is delay in filing both the appeals. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the application under section 254(2) of the Act was filed for rectification of the order dated June 1, 2010, annexure A. 5, which was decided after lapse of more than two and a half years and it was in view thereof, the delay in filing the appeals has occurred. Relying upon judgment of the apex court in Suvarnalatha v. Mohan Anandrao Deshmukh (Civil Appeal No. 2994 of 2010 dated April 5, 2010) (arising out of SLP (C) No. 9482 of 2007), decided on April 5, 2010, it was urged that the said period should be excluded while condoning the delay.