TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and offer his comments thereon. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it would be in the interests of justice to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the entire issue to the file of the assessing officer, to re-examine the same and redecide the issue in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Levy of surcharge - Held that:- We find that issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. Suresh N.Gupta (2008 (1) TMI 396 - SUPREME Court ), wherein it has been held that amendment to the proviso to S.113, though came into operation with effect from 1.6.2002, the same being clarificatory in nature, is applicable even in respect of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effective grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is on account of the action of the CIT(A) in condoning the delay in the filing of the first appeal by the assessee, before him. 4. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the first appeal was field as late as 21 months and the assessee was reluctant even to file the return of income in response to notice issued under S.158BD of the Act, and the assessee also did not respond to various notices issued by the lower authorities during the income tax proceedings. It is also pleaded that the assessee was habitual in showing disrespect and disregard to income-tax proceedings and has nto complied with the notices under S.158BD and 142(1), issued by the assessing officer from time to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere sent to the assessing officer for his comments, the assessing officer in the remand report dated 9.10.2006 has not been able to find fault with the submissions of the assessee, and the assessee soon after obtaining certified copies has field appeal and requested to condone the delay. It is considering these circumstances, that the CIT(A) has condoned the delay on the part of the assessee in preferring the appeal before him. We find no infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in this behalf. We accordingly uphold the same, rejecting the ground of the Revenue on this aspect. 7. Grounds No.2 and 3 of the Revenue in this appeal read as follows- 2) The CIT(A) in total disregard to Rule 46A of IT Rules, admitted additional evidence in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the CIT(A) and restore the entire issue to the file of the assessing officer, to re-examine the same and redecide the issue in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. Ground No.4 of the Revenue reads as follows- The CIT(A) erred in not confirming the computation of income made by the ASSESSING OFFICER on tehe basis for seized material. In view of our decision on grounds No.3 and 4, setting aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer for redeciding the issue and reframing the assessment in accordance with law, this ground of the Revenue needs no adjudication. The same is accordingly rejected. 10. The last effect ground of the Revenue in this appeal relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
