9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... root of the matter and adjudicated the same. It cannot be rejected on the ground of delay, as it was taken before disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A) and when it is a purely legal ground and facts are on record. CIT(A) directed to admit additional ground and adjudicate the same on merits - ITA No: 3857, 3858, 3859, 3860 & 3861/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - SHRI A.D.JAIN, AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, JJ. Appellant by : Sh. K.Sampath, Adv. Respondent by : Smt.Reena S Puri, D.R. Shri B.R.R.Kumar, CIT, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH All these appeals are filed by the assessee and are directed against separate orders of the CIT(A), Meerut. There is a delay of 55 days in filing of all the appeals. The assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en Home Complex Welfare Society. 3. We have heard Mr.K.Sampath, Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri BRR Kumar and Smt.Veena S Puri on behalf of the Revenue. 4. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and a perusal of the papers on record and the orders of the authorities below we hold as follows. The First Appellate Authority at para 6 page 2 states as follows. 6. The appellant has also taken an additional ground of appeal as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment framed by the ld.AO is illegal, void ab initio and without jurisdiction in view of the judgement of the jurisdictional High court of Allahabad in the case of Vandana Verma in ITA 21/All/2009 dt.9.10.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In reply the Ld.counsel submitted that the decision cited by the D.R. are not applicable to the facts of the case as they deal with condonation of delay, which is not the issue raised by the assessee. He relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT ;and another, 187 ITR 688 (S.C.) and the decision in the case of National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383(S.C.). 9. In our considered opinion the fact that the panchanama has been drawn up in joint names, leads to a probable inference that the warrant in question was issued in joint names. This fact has to be verified. The assessee has raised a jurisdictional issue and also relied on the judgement of the Jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
