TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DAR DURREZ AHMED AND MR. ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, JJ. For The Appellant : J.A. Kawoosa, Adv. For The Respondent : Azhar-Ul-Amia, Adv. ORDER Badar Durrez Ahmed, CJ This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed on behalf of the Revenue being aggrieved by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 25.02.2016 in ITA No. 417(Asr)/2012. That appeal was, in turn, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order dated 31.08.2012 which arose out of the assessment order dated 28.11.2011 in respect of the assessment year 2009-10. 2. First of all, after hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that the question framed in the order dated 21.09.2016 needs to be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax ( Appeals) did not find it necessary to enter upon any discussion as to whether Section 194C of the said Act applied or did not apply. In other words, the assessee having conceded that Section 194C was applicable, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) proceeded on that basis. So did the Income Tax Tribunal. 5. The assessee was aggrieved by the partial allowance and the revenue was aggrieved by the partial disallowance by the CIT(A). Consequently, both filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar being Manzoor Ahmed Walvir v. Dy. CIT [2014] 61 SOT 70 (URO) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the revenue appeal and partly allowed assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.2015 the said Misc. application was allowed and the order dated 31.5.2013 was recalled to the extent of rectification sought. 9. The matter, thereafter, was once again argued on merits before the Tribunal. After considering the rival contentions, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned order dated 25.2.2016, upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) and agreed with him that the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 4,16,53,215/- had to be deleted. The plea of the revenue was rejected and the order under appeal was confirmed. 10. No appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 25.2.2016. However, the revenue has filed the present appeal being ITA No. 03/2016 in which we hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
