9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2011, ITA No. 332 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2012 - MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR, MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH, JJ. Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Advocate, for the respondent-assessee. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of I.T.A. Nos. 330 and 332 of 2011, which have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act ), against the common order dated 13.6.2011 rendered by the Amritsar Bench of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, the Tribunal ) dismissing the appeals preferred by the revenue and upholding the view of the CIT(A). The Tribunal has held that the there was no failure on the part of the assessee in ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80IA(9) as well as keeping in view of the fact that the machinery of the assessee-respondent was found to have been used previously for some other purpose. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee-respondent filed an appeal before the CIT(A), Jalandhar. On 8.7.2004, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal holding that deduction under Section 80IB of the Act is admissible to the assessee-respondent. On 11.10.2004, an order under Section 154/250(6) of the Act was passed and the income of the assessee-respondent was re-computed at Nil after allowing deduction of Rs.21,84,220/- under Section 80IB of the Act. 5. Against the order passed by the CIT(A), the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 20.9.2006 and no further app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal of the revenue after extracting and upholding the view taken by the CIT(A) in paras 2.5 to 2.7 of his order dated 25.2.2010. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and are of the view that there is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), which has been upheld by the Tribunal. A categorical finding has been recorded by the CIT(A) that there was no concealment on the part of the assessee-respondent in disclosing the facts to the Assessing Officer, therefore, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of Section 148 of the Act for the purposes of reassessment. It has also been held by the authorities below that it is a case of change of opinion on the same facts, which cannot constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
