9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parashar, Mrs. Mekhala Benny and Miss Umang Luthra Advocates. O R D E R C.M.No.32666/2019 (Delay) 1. For the reasons explained in the application, the delay of 10 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. ITA No.677/2019 2. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order dated 29th November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Assessee. On 9th July, 2015, the AO issued a notice under Section 143(1) of the Act enclosing therewith a questionnaire. After considering the replies of the Assessee, the assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2016 assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 6,34,66,350/-. 5. The CIT decided to invoke the power under Section 263 of the Act and issued a show cause notice ('SCN') to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted the valuation, and further held that on account of the lack of inquiry "the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest" of the Revenue. 6. The above order was assailed by the Assessee before the ITAT. In the impugned order, while agreeing with the Assessee that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the CIT was erroneous, the ITAT noted the detailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht of the original assessment order of the AO. The ITAT was not persuaded to accept the plea of the Revenue that there had been a failure on the part of the AO to conduct a proper inquiry into the question of difference in the valuation of the stock and that the case fell within the parameters for interjection under Section 263 of the Act as expressed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Amitabh Bachhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
