TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal and as such liable for proceedings under contempt of court’s Act. Set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition made by the AO and enhanced by the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 2705/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - SHRI BHAVNSH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : G. C. Srivastava, Adv. Sh. Suvinay Dash, Adv. For The Revenue : Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member : This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida dated 27.03.2018 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. Briefly facts of the case are that in this case, assessment was originally completed on 14th February, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3. The AO in view of the order of the Tribunal re-fixed the matter for fresh hearing. The AO referred to the order of the Tribunal dated 13th October, 2016 and noted that the Tribunal has remitted back the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration. The assessee submitted before ITAT for the year under consideration that ITAT has allowed the appeal of assessee vide order dated 31st August, 2009 passed in ITA no. 3708/2008 for assessment year 2004-05 in assessee s own case. The AO referred to the facts for assessment year 2004-05 and noted that the department has filed appeal before Hon ble Allahabad High Court and the departmental appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee submitted that ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of the same assessee for assessment year under appeal i.e. 2010-11 earlier decided the appeal of assessee vide order dated 13th October, 2016, copy of the same is placed on record and provided to Ld. DR. He has submitted that in the appeal the assessee raised the issue of addition of ₹ 18,18,599/- on ground no. 1 and 2 and ground no. 3 assessee challenged the allowance of expenses of ₹ 28,70,532/-. He has submitted that the Tribunal following its earlier order assessment year 2004-05 allowed ground no. 1 and 2 of the appeal of assessee meaning thereby the addition of ₹ 18,18,599/- have been deleted. He has further submitted that on ground no. 3 regarding allowing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition has already been deleted by the Tribunal. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) misunderstood the order of the ITAT and without any justification enhanced the same addition. It is well settled law that when particular matter is remanded to assessing officer on limited issue, the jurisdiction of the AO is confined to such issue only. In support of above proposition of law, I rely upon decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of S.P. Cochar 145 ITR 255, decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Vidhyavasni Gupta 186 ITR 253 and decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Kathiar Jute Mills 120 ITR 86. Since, in the present case the Tribunal restored the issue of expenses of ₹ 28,70,532/- only to the AO vide order dated 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
