TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted by the assessee. Considering the fact that the CPC, Bengaluru has accepted / assessed the same income as has been offered by the assessee though under section 167A of the Act. Therefore, we concur with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) that there is no mistake which can be classified as mistake apparent from the record. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.1750/AHD/2017 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul KPatel, CA For the Revenue : Shri S.B.G.Mahapatra, Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application of assessee was rejected vide order dated 04.02.2016, without rectifying the assessment order. Aggrieved by the order of CPC, Bengaluru dated 04.02.2016, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee again reiterated that assessee is an AOP and was setup for protecting interest of persons engaged in business of kariyana dry fruits. The assessee is formed with the intention to protect the interest as well as to resolve the common problems faced in carrying out the business within its activities. The assessee filed its return of income as AOP, however, the CPC Bengaluru treated the assessee under section 167A of the Act at taxed it at the maximum marginal rate of tax. The assessee is not carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rival submission of the parties and find that the CPC, Bengaluru assessed the same income, which has been declared by the assessee in its return of income, only the CPC, Bengaluru taxed the assessee at maximum marginal rate under section 167A. Before us Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue raised objection that similar treatments were made in three cases of assessee, which has been accepted by the assessee. Considering the fact that the CPC, Bengaluru has accepted / assessed the same income as has been offered by the assessee though under section 167A of the Act. Therefore, we concur with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) that there is no mistake which can be classified as mistake apparent from the record. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
