TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoking Section 263. - Decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2002 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2018 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant. Mr. Hiro Rai with Mr Subhash Shetty, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [ Per B. P. Colabawalla J. ]: 1. By this Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short I.T. Act ), the Appellant Revenue is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench, Bombay (for short the ITAT ). The present Appeal is only with reference to Assessment Year 1995-1996. 2. This Appeal was admitted by this Court on 9th August, 2004 wherein th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and therefore, set aside the assessment with a direction to the Assessing Officer to re-frame the assessment after examining full facts of the case and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Being aggrieved by this order of the CIT dated 24th March, 2000, the Assessee filed an Appeal before the ITAT. The challenge to the order of the CIT was on the ground of jurisdiction itself as well as on the merits of the matter. After hearing the parties, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT dated 24th March, 2000 and allowed the Appeal. This is how the matter has come up before us. 4. After having heard Mr. Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of the Appellant as well as Mr. Hiro Rai appearing for the Respondent, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if one were to assume that ground no.2 was only the facet of the ground already taken in the notice and was therefore not fatal to the CIT's jurisdiction, the first ground, i.e. units in Kalllakal and Kamdod did not manufacture or produce any article or thing was not taken in the notice issued to the Assessee before passing the order under Section 263. 6. Ordinarily since the Assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard on these two additional grounds we would have remanded the matter back to the CIT for deciding it afresh after giving the Assessee an opportunity of placing material on record with reference to the two additional grounds itself. 7. However, the matter does not rest here. We find that this claim has been ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the facts available on record and the explanations and arguments of the Assessee there seems to be no requirement of any consideration of disallowance of deduction under this section at the moment. Correspondence with the Audit is in progress and subsequently if it is found necessary to finality of the correspondence the deduction under this section shall be modified under relevant section of the I. T. Act. 9. As rightly held by the Tribunal, this note firstly shows that all the explanations and arguments of the Assessee have been considered by the Assessing Officer and secondly that the action taken under Section 263 is only on the basis of the audit party's note or report, who it would appear, ultimately did not approve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
