9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hyderabad erred in not admitting the appeal preferred by the Appellant on the pretext of non-payment of admitted tax which is prejudicial to the interests of the Appellant. 3) The Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad ought to have. considered that the admitted tax should be adjusted against the cash seized from the Assessee / Firm amounting to Rs. 220 lakhs. 4) As the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad has dismissed the appeal in limine in terms of Sec 249(4)(a) of the Act, the merits of the case have not been adjudicated. 5) Without prejudice to the above, the assessee firm has paid the admitted tax amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- on the returned income of Rs. 3,28,000/-. Copy of challan is enclosed. 6) As the admitted tax has been paid, the appeal may be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t arose before the ITAT for the first time. 12. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the Order of the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10, there being no satisfaction recorded by him as well as by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the company searched. 13. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have annulled the Order of the Assessing Officer appreciating that invoking of the provisions u/s 153C without recording satisfaction by him as well as by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the searched party becomes invalid as held by the Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of CIT V s. M/s Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd in ITT A Nos.662 of 2014 dated.26-11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided by holding payment of institution fees of Rs. 500/- is sufficient under such circumstances. 4. Having regard to the decisions placed before us, we admit the appeal and proceed to dispose of the grounds urged before us. 5. The main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act; the first appellate authority ought to have considered that the cash seized from the assessee firm amounting to Rs. 220 lakhs should have been adjusted against the admitted tax, apart from the fact that the assessee has paid admitted tax amounting to Rs. 1 lakh. Ld. Counsel also placed before us a copy of the order of the ITAT in the case of Mr. Ravella Ramakrishna (ITA Nos. 1166 to 1169/Hyd/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submitted that SMC bench in other connected cases of this group i.e. Mr. P. Madhusudhan and M/s Sri Sai Prasanthi Realtors, set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) on similar lines. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the assessment made u/s 153C is bad in law and in this regard raised additional grounds by submitting that a legal issue involved therein does not require further examination of the facts and, hence, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of NTPC, 229 ITR 383, the issue deserves to be considered. 6. We have also heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the record. Admittedly, the consistent plea of the assessee is that the cash seized by the department from the assessee firm is in excess of tax p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
