TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt have not been disposed of by a separate speaking order, then the impugned assessment order is bad in law. The said proposition is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and applying the same, the assessment order is to be quashed. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue against the merits of addition and the same are dismissed. - Decided against revenue - ITA No.2286/PUN/2016, C.O. No.39/PUN/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, J. Assessee by: Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by: Shri Suhas S. Kulkarni ORDER Sushma Chowla, The present appeal filed by the Revenue is against the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant prays that the order of the Learned CIT(A)-1, Nashik may please be cancelled and the order of Assessing officer may please be restored. 6. The appellant prays to adduce such further evidence to substantiate his case. 7. The appellant prays leave to add, alter clarify, amend and or withdraw any grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demand. 3. The assessee in CO No.39/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of objections:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities have erred in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of the fact that on an independent inquiry u/s 133(6) appellant has submitted all the necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in law, the lower authorities have erred in not allowing the set-off of brought forward losses from the assessed income as per the provisions of law, your appellant prays for such set-off of brought forward losses as per the provisions of law. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities have erred in levying the interest u/s 234B a sum of ₹ 4,59,240/- without considering the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 234B and further erred in levying the interest u/s 234B a sum of ₹ 69,973/-, appellant seeks consequential relief. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that there is no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of M/s. Bayer Material Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to hold that where the objections filed by the assessee against reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been disposed of by a separate speaking order, then the impugned assessment order is bad in law. The said proposition is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and applying the same, the assessment order is to be quashed. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue against the merits of addition and the same are dismissed. 8. The assessee has filed Cross Objections which are dismissed being academic in nature. 9. In the result, both the appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
