TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the order dated May 16, 2008, should have challenged the same - Admittedly, this was not done. In that view of the matter, there was consequential order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was in term confirmed by the Tribunal – the contentions of the revenue could not be accepted because it would lead to challenge the order, which was not done – Decided against Revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO. 1081 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2014 - AKIL KURESHI AND SONIA GOKANI, JJ. For the Appellant : Varun K. Patel ORDER :- PER : Akil Kureshi The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated April 26, 2013, raising the following questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s decision in the case of Rameshkumar Surajmal Soni (supra), admit the additional ground in both the present cases and, further after following the findings as contained in paragraph Nos. 9,10 11 of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Rameshkumar Surajmal Soni, restore the issue back to the file of CIT (Appeals) with the direction that he will verify from the assessment records as to whether any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in the case of these two assessee had ever been issued and served before the limitation period prescribed u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the case, it is found that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been served upon, on any of that two assessees within the limitation prescribed as per proviso to sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Commissioner was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. In the second round, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal with the following observations: 3. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we have noted that the question of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) as prescribed was very much in the knowledge of the Revenue Department and a remand report has also been called for by the ld. CIT (A). In the absence of any specific information in respect of the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, ld. CIT (A) was left with no option but to quash the impugned order in view of the directions of the Tribunal. The directions of the Tribunal were that the CIT(A) will verify from the assessment record as to whether any not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s appeal confirming the decision of the CIT(A). We notice that in the order dated April 26, 2013, which is impugned in this appeal, all that the Tribunal has done is to confirm the decision of CIT (A) when it was found that there was no dispute about non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act to the respondent-assessee. On such basis, the Commissioner following the directions of the Tribunal given in the earlier order allowed the assessee's appeal and declared the assessment proceedings as invalid. 6. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the decision of the Tribunal, in which specific directions were given to the Commissioner regarding the question whether such notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
