TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no decision has been taken by the respondent No.1 on the objections relating to the jurisdiction prior to passing of the order impugned. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced for having invited an order under Section 144A of the Act by respondent No.2. This Court is of the considered view that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable for the reason that no order under Section 144A of the Act was considered in the said cases. Writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before an appropriate authority in accordance with law. - WRIT PETITION No.1374/2019 (T – IT) - - - Dated:- 7-2-2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions to the respondent No.1, the relevant direction reads as under:- The assessee has also credited other receipts on various dates amounting to ₹ 1,07,025/-, the sources of these receipts are not known. Further, it is also not clear whether the amount given was fully repaid or not. All the above facts leads to a conclusion that the assessee has arranged this fund out of the funds of the borrower. Since, the said loan has already been assessed in the hands of Sri. M.A. Siddique, Supreme Industries, and the issue is before the Appellate Authority, the tax on the same addition in the hands of M/s. Swadesh Trading Co. may be kept in abeyance till the issue reaches its finality. As regards the other proposed addition is concerned, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act seeking directions to respondent No.1 during the pendency of the reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. It is hardly required to be stated that the respondent No.1 is bound by the directions issued by the respondent No.2 in terms of the order passed under Section 144A of the Act. That being the fact situation, the order impugned is passed by respondent No.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no decision has been taken by the respondent No.1 on the objections relating to the jurisdiction prior to passing of the order impugned. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced for having invited an order under Section 144A of the Act by respondent No.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
