TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39 of 2011 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 20-8-2013 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Jaspal Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S. K. Mukhi, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. C.M. No. 15388-CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. ITA No. 239 of 2011 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench F , New Delhi (in short the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 4282/DEL/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 29.11.2004 (Annexure A-1) assessed the income under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 25,77,818/- (including other income) as against the loss of Rs. 4,29,685/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [For brevity the CIT (A) ]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 10.10.2006 (Annexure A-2) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the income assessed under the head Income from House Property should be assessed under the head Income from business and profession and also allowed the depreciation on building and other expenses as claimed by the assessee. Against the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 17.9.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inths and godowns, at the rate of 10 per cent amounting to Rs.21,60,923/- as claimed by the assessee? 4. It was urged that the original order dated 17.9.2007 was recalled and the appeal was ordered to be decided afresh by taking the amended ground of appeal into consideration, still the Tribunal vide order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure A-5) failed to consider the amended ground of appeal and had, thus, committed the same error while deciding the appeal again. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the amended ground of appeal filed on 25.4.2007 was allowed as has been noticed by the Tribunal in its order dated 12.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
