9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income Tax, LTU-2, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO') u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 30/09/2015. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the facts and substance of order of AO before dismissing the appeal i.e. whether said order complied with direction of CIT u/s.264 or AO exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that whereas Ld. CIT in his order u/s.264 dated 23.03.2015 directed the AO to treat return of Income filed as a valid return, AO in his order dated 30.09.2015 purportedly giving effect to the direction, in actual exceeded the direction an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings was also sought vide letters dated 07/07/2009, 27/07/2009 and 16/12/2009, which were duly responded by the assessee by furnishing requisite details and explanations thereon. In the fag end of the assessment proceedings, the ld. AO found that ITR-V filed by the assessee was not duly signed and verified by the authorised signatory. Hence, the ld. AO held that assessee company had not filed any return of income and the e-return was treated as invalid return and thereafter, the ld. AO dropped the proceedings initiated u/s 143(2) of the Act vide order dated 31/12/2009. In the said order, the ld. AO did not mention the Section under which such assessment order was passed by him. In the said assessment order, the ld. AO having treated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... listed for hearing for a long time. Reminder was sent by the assessee to the ld. CIT(A) on 23/10/2012. As no action was forthcoming, the assessee made a request to Chief Commissioner - II, Pune on 15/02/2013 to direct the ld. CIT(A)-III to take up the hearing of the appeal. On 04/03/2013, a communication was received from ld. CIT(A)-III, Pune stating that demand notice was not found attached with the appeal and assessee was asked to rectify the said defect. The assessee responded vide letter dated 13/03/2013 before the ld. CIT(A)-III, Pune stating that no demand notice u/s 156 of the Act was issued by the ld. AO alongwith assessment order dated 31/12/2009 which was passed without mentioning any section thereon. The ld. CIT(A)-III, Pune fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady been furnished on 24/12/2009 before the ld. AO which was taken on record by the ld. AO without giving any acknowledgement to the assessee thereon. It is also a fact on record that the assessee was asked by the ld. AO vide letter dated 07/07/2009 to file hard copy of the return of income alongwith tax audit report and other details and also copy of return in form ITR-6 duly signed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the IDBI Bank. This was duly filed by the assessee before the ld. AO. It was pleaded in the revision petition u/s.264 of the Act by the assessee before the ld. CIT that the ld. AO had merely pointed out orally to the assessee's representative that the ITR-V filed by the assessee was not signed by the authorized signator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld AO had passed an order dated 31.12.2009 without mentioning the section under which such order is passed by him and also by summarily disallowing the loss of Rs. 155.36 crores and also suggesting some disallowances on without prejudice basis. In the said order, the ld AO had categorically stated that the e-return filed by the assessee is non-est and invalid. We find that the ld AO had also categorically stated that the proceedings initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act were dropped by him. Hence all the disallowances suggested by him in the said order, even on without prejudice basis, will have no legs to stand. Admittedly, this so called assessment order was passed by the ld AO without issuing notice of demand u/s 156 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also find that in the giving effect proceedings to Section 264 of the Act, the ld. AR argued that statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were not issued by the ld. AO and hence, the entire assessment deserves to be annulled in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal reported in 18 Taxmann.com 183 (SC). But we find that the assessee has not raised any grounds of appeal to this effect and hence, we do not deem it fit to entertain this argument of the ld. AR made before us at this stage. 9.3. In view of our aforesaid observations in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we direct the ld AO to delete all the disallowances and accept the return filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
