TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... left it open ended,it is of the view, it was also unsustainable and is therefore liable to be quashed. Therefore, the consequential orders passed by the respondents against the petitioner based on collateral proceedings in the case of M/s. Eastman Exports Global Clothing Private Limited are also liable to be quashed and the case should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order of assessment on merits in accordance with law taking note of the facts. The impugned recovery proceedings dated 03.02.2016 and 28.03.2016 are quashed and the case is remitted back to the concerned assessing officer to pass a fresh order of assessment on merits in accordance with law taking note of all the facts. The concerned Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as treated as an advance by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, M/s. Eastman Exports Global Clothing Private Limited had treated the aforesaid amount as a revenue expenditure and claimed the benefit of deduction as allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Since the amount was paid to improve the infrastructure of the petitioner for with M/s. Eastman Exports Global Clothing Private Limited to improve their business, the Assessing Officer by an order dated 19.02.2013 concluded that the said company was not entitled to claim expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2013, the Assessing Officer disallowing the expenditure Section 37(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the protective assessment in the hands of the assesseei.e, M/s. CIBI International cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. 10. It appears that the respondent has not filed any appeal against the said order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, in view of the disposal of appeals filed by M/s. Eastman Exports Global Clothing Private Ltd. and by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II dated 31.03.2014 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.07.2014, the respondent has once again issued letter dated 03.02.2016 to conclude that the protective assessment order passed under Section 143(3) on 18.03.2013 becomes substantive order and accordingly the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order dated 18.03.2013 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in I.T.A.No.24/13-14 vide order dated 23.06.2014. Therefore, the impugned demands are unsustainable. 17. Since the assessment procedure adopted by the assessing officer for the petitioner was not proper order and had left it open ended, I am of the view, it was also unsustainable and is therefore liable to be quashed. Therefore, the consequential orders passed by the respondents against the petitioner based on collateral proceedings in the case of M/s. Eastman Exports Global Clothing Private Limited are also liable to be quashed and the case should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order of assessment on merits in accordance with law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
