TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in favour of the Assessee. - ITA No. 125/2003 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2015 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Adv For the Respondent : Ms. Kavita Jha with Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advs ORDER 1. The background to the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) is set out in the order of the Supreme Court dated 13th January 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 481 of 2006 which reads as under: Leave granted. The respondent-assessee had challenged the order dated 31st March, 2000, made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of block period 1st April, 1987 to 7th August, 1997 before the Income Tax Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit ITA No. 125 of 2003 for fresh decision by the High Court in accordance with law after framing the requisite question of law. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. 2. That is how the present appeal is being heard again by the Court. 3. On 29th August 2006 while formally admitting the appeal, this Court framed the following two questions for determination: 1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of a loss of ₹ 35,95,34,493/- incurred by the assessee for block assessment period from 1st April, 1997 to 7th August, 1997? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the charging of the sur-charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the assessment order would be sent to you as soon as the records are traced. 7. Considering the number of adjournments already granted in the matter, the Court does not consider it reasonable to grant any further adjournment to produce the relevant record. As already noticed by the Supreme Court, the ITAT noted in its order that neither the AO, nor CIT (Appeals) has brought any material on record that which part (sic) of the income was not disclosed by assessee while filing the return of income or which portion of loss claimed by the assessee in the regular returns, was not genuine. Merely presuming that assessee must have booked bogus losses to reduce its profitability, in our considered view, cannot be approved either on the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
