TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 35 filed before the CIT(A) were specifically highlighted which were copy of Form No. 5 uploaded by the Pr. CIT, copy of withdrawal of penalty appeal filed by the assessee and copy of Form No. 35 (Pages 16-18) filed before the CIT(A). We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the facts as borne out from record which we have seen, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and set aside the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass the orders denovo in accordance with law considering the correct facts and after hearing the assessee. Said order was pronounced in the presence of parties via Webex. - ITA Nos. 339 & 340/CHD/2021 - - - Dated:- 18-1-202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order under s. 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without following the proper procedure for making the assessment under section 144 i.e. best judgment assessment, despite the fact that the appellant has been visiting the office of Ld. AO regularly. Even the notices were not served, as per the procedures provided under the Income Tax Act 1961, to the appellant and therefore the said order deserves to be quashed. 4. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO by rejecting/disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act 1961, of ₹ 1,84,23,406/from the Baddi (H.P) unit and making an addition thereof in the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y appeals. The assessee informed the CIT(A) of this fact seeking withdrawal of penalty appeals in the circumstances. However, the CIT(A) acting on the application of the assessee and misreading it considered the quantum appeal as withdrawn and passed the order. The penalty appeal which had been settled in the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' to be treated as withdrawn was held to be pending incorrectly in 2013-14 assessment year. The only distinction in the two years is that in 2014-15 assessment year, both the quantum and the penalty appeals were treated as withdrawn having been settled under 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme. However, qua the two appeals listed today, the common fact remains that in 2013-14 and 2014-15 assessment years, the qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
