9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra ORDER 1. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Manish Misra, Advocate for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1961") has arisen from judgment and order dated 16.12.2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in ITA No. 59/L/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant and the Tribunal committed perversity in recording its findings, while relying on the report of the Special Auditor in a piecemeal manner?" 4. A best judgment assessment was made in respect whereto Assessee in preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] and raised following ground no. 5: "The Learned Assessing Officer was not ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eto an opportunity should have been given to him before asking for audit of his accounts. CIT(A) held that said proviso was inserted by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2007 while order for audit was passed on 12.10.2006 and, therefore, said proviso was not applicable. The appeal however was allowed by CIT(A) in view of its findings on ground no. 5 and others. 6. Revenue aggrieved by order of CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate have been confirmed: a) Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. I.T.O., Wart 1(3), Gorakhpur 5 MTC 289, I.T.A.T. Allahabad. b) Dy. CIT Circle Bulandshahar vs. Allied Construction 105 ITD 1 (SB), I.T.A.T. Delhi. c) Sri Arvind Kumar Chaudhary vs. Dy CIT Gonda I.T.A. No. 172/Lkw/10." 7. It shows that Revenue accepted findings of CIT(A) with regard to requirement of notice and did not challenge that. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
