9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. First we take up the appeal of the Revenue vide ITA.No.1161/Hyd/2012 for assessment year 2004-2005. The grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal are as follow : ITA.No.1161/Hyd/2012 - A.Y. 2004-2005 : 1. "The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous on both law and facts. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in holding that issue of notice u/s. 148 is without authority of law and invalid, as the prior approval of the JCIT has not been taken, without examining the proceedings in totality. 2.2.The CIT(A) erred in not considering the provisions of section 292B of the I.T. Act. 3. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal on technical aspects without going into facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as such invalid. Hence, I am inclined to agree with the A.R. and quash the action of the A.O. in assuming jurisdiction for reassessment and accordingly, the consequential addition made by the A.O. stands deleted". 3.1. Learned A.R. submitted that the grounds raised by the Revenue is totally misconceived and admittedly, before issuance of notice under section 148 there was no prior approval of the JCIT taken by the Assessing Officer. Being so, the Orders of the CIT(A) in observing that assuming jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2004-2005 without authority of law is correct and as such, the proceedings initiated to be quashed. Accordingly, the mistake committed by the Assessing Officer cannot be rectified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Learned Counsel for the assessee and we condone the delay. 7. The learned A.R. raised the issue that the departmental appeal should be dismissed since the tax effect for the individual appeal for each assessment year is less than Rs. 3 lakhs. He also relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod 253 CTR 492. However, we find that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. 210 Taxman 254 have held that the CBDT circular should not be applied ipso facto particularly when the matter has cascading effect. Cases in which common principle may be involved in subsequent large number of matters cannot be dismissed by applying the circular ipso facto. In view of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected to the Order of the CIT(A) in not forwarding the additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. In the opinion, this is in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and hence, we remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to peruse the additional grounds of appeal and decide the issue denovo after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. The second ground of appeal by the Revenue is that the enhancement of interest on remuneration to partners has been allowed by the CIT(A) which is against section 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since we have remitted the appeal with respect to additional grounds, we remit this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led with Entertainment Tax Officer, Tirupati which has not been considered by him in his appellate order". 14. In this cross-objection for the assessment year 2005-2006 the assessee challenging the reopening of the assessment. According to the A.R. reopening of assessment is bad in law. In this assessment year, notice under section 148 has been issued after recording reasons and it was within 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 has to be upheld. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2005- 2006 and the same is confirmed. Ground No.1 in the cross-objection is rejected. 15. Hence, we sustain the Order of the CIT(A) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2012 is identical to C.O.No.150/Hyd/2012 for the A.Y. 2005-06. Hence, the conclusion reached in C.O.No.150/Hyd/2012 is to be followed in this cross objection also. Hence, the cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. ITA.No.1164/Hyd/2012 - A.Y. 2007-2008 : The facts and grounds of appeal in ITA.No.1164/Hyd/2012 are same to that of ITA.No.1162/Hyd/2012. Following our order passed in ITA.No.1162/Hyd/2012 hereinabove, we allow Revenue's appeal ITA. No. 1164/Hyd/2012 for statistical purposes. 22. C.O.No.152/Hyd/2012 - A.Y. 2007-2008 : The Cross Objection No. 152/Hyd/2012 is identical to C.O.No.150/Hyd/2012 for the A.Y. 2005-06. Hence, the conclusion reached in C.O.No.150/Hyd/2012 is to be followed in this cross objection also. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
