9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore cannot be made the basis for rectification of the order as prescribed under Section 254(2) of IT Act - petition of the Revenue dismissed - I.T.A. No. 4219/A/2007 & MA No.186 /A/2010 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2012 - Sri Mukul Kr. Shrawat, And Sri A Mohan Alankamony JJ. Revenue Sri O. P. Balteja, Sr, D.R. Assessee Sri Prakash D. Shah ORDER PER: Sri Mukul Kr. Shrawat, J.M. 1. From the side of the Revenue a miscellaneous application has been moved on 19-08-2010 requesting to recall an order of the Tribunal as referred (supra) in the nomenclature dated 14-05-2010. 2. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue (ITA NO.4219/A/2007, Asst. Year 2003-04) as per the following observations reproduced below:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king of un-checked and disproportionate expenses, involved the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act and on the basis of the gross profit at the rate of 5% of the job work and others shown by the assessee at Rs. 4,30,54,563/- which works out to Rs. 21,52,728/-. The assessing officer accordingly, a sum of Rs. 9,59,554/- being the difference between the gross profit shown by the assessee as computed above is added to the total income of the assessee. Against the order, the assessee has preferred appeal before CIT(A). The Ld CIT(a) has deleted the addition taking into view that the AO has not established any case of bogus claim or double deduction of expenses by the appellant. On aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... special bench. An another legal development has also been brought to our notice that the Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roopam Rajeev Mardia in tax appeal 108 of 2010 vide an order dated 22-03-2011 has considered and admitted the following question of law:- Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in dismissing the tax appeal of the revenue on the ground of low tax effect; though the notional tax effect exceeded the monetary limit prescribed by the board? 5. In the said background of the development; the learned A R of respondent assessee has vehemently pleaded that the issue has become debatable and therefore not within the purview of the rectification as prescribed under Section 254(2) of IT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
