Tax Management India. Com
Subscription  |   New User  |   Login
Acts/ Rules Notifications Circulars Forms Tariff/ ITC HSN Case Laws Manuals Short Notes
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

2017 (9) TMI 668 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Rectification of mistake - ITAT passed separate orders for the different AYs despite the facts that all the four AYs, i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 being the same - Held that:- The Court is of the view that the Petitioner has been able to make out a case to show that the ITAT contradicted itself by passing separate orders in respect of the Assessee’s appeals for the aforementioned AYs on different dates. It is not understood as to how the factual matrix for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Court, this was a good enough ground for the Assessee to seek rectification of the order under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27th April 2016 passed by the ITAT is hereby set aside. - W. P. (C) No. 8439/2016 - Dated:- 5-9-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Inder Paul Bansal and Mr. Vivek Bansal, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER 1. In peculiar facts and circumstances, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l/2012 for AY 2008-09 and ITA No. 2094/Del/2012 for AY 2009-10. 2. The background facts are that the Assessee was subjected to a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act on 31st July 2008. After receiving notices under Section 153A of the Act, the Assessee filed, on 22nd March 2010, returns declaring an income of ₹ 11,95,100/- for AY 2006-07, ₹ 24,66,241/- for AY 2007-08 and ₹ 1,81,84,890/- for AY 2008-09. For AY 2009-10, the Assessee filed a return on 11th Aug .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the present petition concerns the additions made under Section 69C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the Assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ]. These appeals were partly allowed by the CIT (A) by its order dated 31st January 2012. The additions made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act were deleted in part. 5. While the Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT (A) for each of the above AYs before the ITAT, the Assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enue filed an appeal before this Court viz., ITA No. 400/2013. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 3rd April 2014, thus confirming the order dated 31st December 2012 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 1693/Del/2012 and 2091/Del/2012 and CO No. 246/Del/2012 for AY 2006-07. 8. For some reason, although the arguments in the appeals and COs for the above four AYs were heard together, the orders in respect of the appeals for the different AYs was not passed on the same date by the ITAT. The or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts own order for AY 2006-07. 9. Interestingly, the appeal by the Revenue (ITA No. 736/2014) against the order dated 4th January 2013 of the ITAT in ITA No. 1694/Del/2012 (Revenue s Appeal) for AY 2007-08 was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 5th August 2015. Thus, the ITAT s order dismissing the Revenue s appeal for AY 2007-08 was confirmed by this Court. 10. Twenty days after the order in the appeal for AY 2007-08, the ITAT on 24th January 2013 passed a separate order in the appeal for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te the facts and circumstances for all the four AYs, i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 being the same, and the ITAT hearing the appeals and COs arising in respect thereof together and reserving orders on the same day, the ITAT passed separate orders for the different AYs. Further, the said orders were not consistent. The ITAT followed its own order for AY 2006-07 while rejecting the Revenue s appeals for the subsequent AYs, but also rejected the Assessee s appeals by not following the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ications would amount to reviewing its own orders dated 4th January 2013 (for AY 2007-08) and 24th January 2013 (for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively). 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the Petitioner has been able to make out a case to show that the ITAT contradicted itself by passing separate orders in respect of the Assessee s appeals for the aforementioned AYs on different dates. It is not understood as to how the factual matrix for AYs 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



Share:            

| Home | About us | Contact us | Disclaimer | Terms | Privacy |

©Taxmanagementindia.com
A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.
All rights reserved.

Go to Desktop Version