TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Deepali before the ITAT that the income earned by it on the part of contract performed by it had in fact been offered by it for tax and an assessment had also been completed against it separately on that basis. Deepali accordingly submitted that on the face of it, the original assessment order itself would have to be revisited not only to determine whether in fact Deepali was still a member of the AOP and, therefore, liable to be proceeded against for the tax liability of the AOP and further on merits whether the assessment had to be of the AOP minus Deepali. As far as the impugned order of the ITAT is concerned, the Court is of the view that the remand of the matter by the ITAT to the AO could not be said to be unwarranted in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent appearing on advance notice. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the question whether the Deepali was in fact a member of the AOP appears to have been a contested one even while the case was before the ITAT. The cause title of the impugned order of the ITAT itself reflects that against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], two separate appeals had to be filed. One on behalf of the AOP represented by Deepali as alleged member and the other by Deepali in its name again expressly stating that it was alleged to be a member of the AOP. 6. The impugned order of the ITAT notes that the assessment order was passed by the AO ex parte i.e. without Deepali appearing in the assessment proceedings. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust entertain the present appeal. 8. The Court is shown an order dated 13th June 2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 17 attaching a payment of ₹ 125 crores on account of arbitral award deposited in the Registry of Hon ble Delhi High Court by the Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth and Sports anticipating the submission that there is no outstanding demand in view of the ITAT having set aside the assessment order against the AOP. 9. The Court sees no reason why in the present proceedings, the Court should express any view on the above order of the Department passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). It will be open to the Department to take whatever measur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
