TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal till a decision is taken in the appeal filed by Janardhan Reddy which is a substantive appeal. Held that:- It is not in dispute that in the protective assessment order at Annexure-A there is a reference to the case of Gali Janardhan Reddy which reads as under: In the light of the above evidence, the assessee was required to show cause, vide letter dated 07.01.2013 why an amount of ₹ 194,82,50,000/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 37,45,06,000/- for the assessment year 2011-12, should not be brought to tax as his undisclosed business income. Mr. Madhukumar Varma furnished his explanation vide letter dated 24.1.2012 by disassociating himself from the seized material and contradicting his own statements made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, Bench-A to defer the hearing of the appeal in ITA No.478/BANG/2017 as per Annexure-F till adjudication of appeal against the substantive assessment in the case of Gali Janardhan Reddy for the assessment year 2010-11 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. This Court by an order dated 25.7.2018, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, granted stay as prayed for staying further proceedings in ITA No.478/BANG/2017 as per Annexure-F dated 23.7.2018 till the next date of hearing. Hence, the present application I.A.1/18 is filed by the respondent for vacating the interim order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri. Mayank Jain, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat after the reassessment order passed on 29.12.2017, there was no protective assessment except substantive assessment which is subject to the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the present respondent before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on the ground of delay was protective assessment. There was no reason for the Tribunal to wait till the substantive appeal decided by the Commissioner of Appeals in the case of Gali Janardhan Reddy. Therefore, he sought to vacate the interim order. 6. Sri. Aravind Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners contended that the original assessment order passed in the case of Gali Janardhan Reddy on 31.3.2013 was set aside on technicality by the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioners and on merits as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. The fact remains that, petitioners passed fresh orders exercising power under Section 147 of the Act on 29.12.2017. Against the assessment order, appeal filed by the assessee on substantive assessment pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 in Appeal No.ITA.No.04/DCIT, CC-1(3)/CIT(A)-11/2014-15. 8. It is also not in dispute that appeal is filed by the present respondent against the assessment order dated 27.3.2013. The appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to be dismissed on 2.1.2017 on the ground of delay and laches. That is the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.478/B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In such circumstances, considering the evidence on record, the above sum of ₹ 194.82 crores is added protectively in the hands of the assessee and substantively in the hands of Mr.G.Janardhana Reddy as arising from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 2010-11. 11. Though an attempt was made by learned counsel for the respondent, that the said order was set-aside by the Tribunal on 17.10.2016 and the same reached finality. The fact remains that a reassessment order came to be passed as per Annexure-D on 29.12.2017 and that is the subject matter of appeal pending before the Commissioner of Appeals. In all fairness, the Tribunal ought to have decided the application filed for deferment by the petitioners nor deferred the hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
