9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- "I. 1) The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-38 ("CIT (A)") erred in passing an order without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2) The appellant prays that the order passed by the CIT(A) being against the rules of natural justice be quashed as being void ab initio and / or illegal. Without prejudice to above II. 1)The CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal to be infructuous in view of the order passed u/s 263. 2)The appellant prays that the appeal be not treated as infructuous. Without prejudice to above. III 1) The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ("ACIT") erred in passing a non-speaking order u/s 254/147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2) The appellant prays that it be held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provision of 80HHC (4B) of the Act. 2) The appellant prays that the benefit u/s 80HHC be allowed in entirety without reducing the same by deduction allowed u/s 80I. Without prejudice to above. IX 1) The ACIT erred in charging interest u/s 234B of the Act. 2) The appellant prays that interest charged u/s 234B be deleted." 1.1 In assessment year 2000-01 the figures mentioned above are to be replaced by sums of Rs.7,92,33,574/- and Rs.12,80,15,828/-. 2. Both the impugned assessment orders are dated 16th December 2010 passed by AO under provisions of sections 254/147/143(3). Earlier assessment done u/s. 143(3) was subject matter of appeal before ITAT and the issues were set aside by the Tribunal to the file of Assessing Officer and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both these appeals for statistical purposes. 2.1 As it can be found from ground of appeal No.1 presented before us, the first grievance of the Assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal filed by the Assessee without affording opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of ld. CIT(A) should be quashed as per rules of natural justice. 3. We have heard both parties on this issue. The facts have already been narrated above. CIT in his order passed u/s. 263 has held the assessment passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the ground that Assessing Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. CIT(A) was not correct in dismissing the appeals filed by the Assessee. 3.1 In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appeals filed by the Assessee have wrongly been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). We direct him to adjudicate the appeal filed by the Assessee on each of the issue as per provisions of law. Therefore, accepting the first ground, we restore these appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals filed by the Assessee in their entirety. Since we are restoring these appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the same, we do not express any opinion on the other grounds which are subject matter of the appeal filed before us, as the entire appeals are to be re- adjudicated b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
