2012 (7) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ollowing observations reproduced below:-   "3. From the side of the Revenue, Learned Departmental Representative has stated that though the assessee has declared a loss and the assessment has also been finalized at NIL income, but the question of addition of Gross Profit of Rs. 9,59,554/- might have the effect of the tax more than the prescribed limit, therefore, this appeal can independently be adjudicated upon. Alternatively, he has also contested that the question of NIL assessment where admittedly no tax liability has been imposed by the Assessee Officer are subject to controversy that whether in those cases where the addition involved is substantial; whether can be said to be covered by the CBDT Circulars. 4. On hearing both the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the department filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order of the Id. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT, the issue was debated only on the basis of tax effect, because the tax effect therein was less than the prescribed limit and the Hon'ble ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the CIT Vs. Mangalam Ricinus Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 186 (Delhi). The hon'ble ITAT has also stated in the appellate order that if the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable miscellaneous petition to Hon'ble ITAT may be filed. In this case the question of addition of Gross Profit of Rs. 9,59,554/- will have the notio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prescribed under Section 254(2) of IT Act. This argument of the respondent assessee appears to be correct, because at the time when the impugned appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14-05-2010, reliance was placed on certain decisions and the CBDT Circular available at that time. Therefore, the adjudication was proper after due consideration of the facts as also the law applicable at that point of time. All the latest development thereafter thus raised a controversy and being controversial in nature therefore cannot be made the basis for rectification of the said order as prescribed under Section 254(2) of IT Act. 6. Resultantly, we hereby dismiss this petition of the Revenue. 
Case laws, Decisions, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X