TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iple mistakes in a single so called assessment order, had passed a wholly unsustainable and illegal order. CIT while disposing of the 264 petition of the assessee, had clearly directed the ld. AO to treat the return filed by the assessee originally as a valid return - AO while giving effect to the proceedings of the ld. CIT should not have travelled beyond the directions given by the ld. CIT. The ld. AO should have simply treated the return filed by the assessee originally and accepted the same without resorting to make any disallowances thereon. Even if he resorts to make any disallowance, the ld AO ought to have issued fresh notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act duly show causing the assessee with regard to those specific issues. Instead of doing so, the ld AO had merely repeated the same disallowances as was proposed by him originally by him, on without prejudice basis, in the illegal and unsustainable so called assessment order passed without mentioning any section. The said disallowances were even made by the ld. AO without giving any show-cause notice to the assessee expressing his mind to make such disallowances. Hence, the said disallowances made without issuing show- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition in book profit on account of expenses relating to tax free income as per Sec.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the capacity of successor to The United Western Bank Ltd (pursuant to its amalgamation with the assessee), electronically filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 31/10/2007 declaring loss of ₹ 155,35,67,912/-. The assessee filed an acknowledgement of the return in ITR-V with the Jurisdictional AO i.e. DCIT, Satara Circle on 06/11/2007. The return was selected for scrutiny vide issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act on 26/09/2008. Information in connection with assessment proceedings 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 finally passed the appellate order on 30/9/2013 dismissing it as not maintainable under the provisions of Section 246A of the Act. 5. The assessee later filed a revision petition u/s. 264 of the Act before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT).The assessee also filed a condonation petition for delayed filing of application u/s.264 of the Act before the ld. CIT. The ld. CIT condoned the delay and admitted the revision petition u/s.264 of the Act for adjudication. It was pleaded in the revision proceedings before the ld. CIT, that despite the fact that all the notices given by theld. AO had been duly complied with by the assessee by furnishing the requisite details and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e return filed by the assessee as non-est/invalid. 8. Aggrieved by this order dated 30/09/2013 framed by the ld. AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-1, Mumbai. The ld. CIT(A) again held that this appeal is not an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The facts narrated hereinabove together with sequence of events are not in dispute and hence, the same are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. At the outset, we find that the 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 ₹ 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 suggeste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
