9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in holding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee and the assessee had disclosed truly all material facts necessary for assessment thereby ignoring the fact as evident from records that the first submission was filed by the assessee on December 8, 2008 and that too after repeated show-cause notices and reminders which finally led to the culmination of notice dated 25th November 2008 of an ex-parte order which fixed that details should be filed on or by 2nd December 2008 but the assessee again avoided responding to the notice and filed its first and only submission on 8th December 2008 on the basis of which assessment order was passed". H) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T-(A) erred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been formed by the AO". The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the DCIT 9(3X2) be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. (v) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the DCIT 9(3X2) be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary." 3. The grounds raised in the cross objection by the assessee read as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer ('AO') has erred in alleging the Respondent for non-compliance and for not fully disclosing all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in initiating consequential penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act." 4. In this case assessment was made under reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act. In assessment order, Assessing Officer made disallowance of commission amounting to Rs. 2,61,15,274. 5. Before the learned CIT(A) assessee objected to the validity of reopening as well as merits of the addition of Rs. 2,61,15,274. 6. In the appellate order, learned CIT(A) held that the reopening was bad in law and hence the re-assessment proceedings were not valid. Learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue upon merits by treating them to be infructuous. 7. Against the above order, Revenue has filed appeal and the assessee has filed cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
