TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition, which is impermissible in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, where, we are required to decide only Substantial Questions of Law, which arises for consideration. The power conferred on this Court under Section 260 A of the Act is not to act as a third Appellate Court over the orders passed by the Tribunal. We find from the grounds raised before us that there is nothing brought on record by the Revenue to show that the order passed by the Tribunal was factually incorrect or for that matter, the order passed by the CIT(A). No substantial question of law. - T.C.A.No. 887 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2020 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment? 2. We have elaborately heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and M/s.Arun Karthik Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing industrial noise control equipments. The assessment for the year under consideration AY 2004-05, was completed under Section 143 (3) of the Act by order dated 01.06.2005. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened after a period of four years on the ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment for the concerned year. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hange of opinion and is not valid in law. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd., (2005) 287 ITR 25 (Mad) and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Dinesh Chandra H.Shah [82 ITR 367 (SC)] . 4. The Revenue challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the factual position as culled out by the CIT(A), held that the Assessing Officer, while reopening the assessment and passing the order dated 28.12.2011, did not point out of the details or material facts necessary for the completion of the assessment, which was not disclosed by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
