9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Respondent by : Smt. Anusha Khurana, Sr. DR. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dated 5,1.2012 for assessment year 2003-004. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law since having dismissed appeal summarily, in violation to the provisions of section 250(6) without stating the order disposing shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision whereas the prayer for adjournment by Counsel personally and adjournment letter dated 5.1.2012 by Speed Post No.ED4363171341N stands overlooked and ignored. 2. Because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- after making certain additions. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the additions vide order dated 28.9.2007. The assessee then filed appeal before ITAT and the Tribunal vide its order 19.11.2008 restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer in respect of following points:- 1. With respect to validity of retrospective amendment made in section 80HHC by Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 w.e.f. 1.4.1998 in view of the fact that matter was pending before various Courts. 2. With respect to interest earned income to verify if any expenditure was incurred for earning interest. 3. The Assessing Officer then vide order dated 12.11.2009 recomputed the taxable income of the assessee at the same figure of Rs.17,54,140/- as was computed vide origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only fraction of cases are picked up for scrutiny, the unscrupulous assessee shouldn t get away by merely paying the tax. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The Ld AR argued before us that the subject matter which resulted into imposition of penalty has not yet been decided by various Courts. The penalty u/s 271(1)( c) should be kept in abeyance. 8. The Ld DR had no objection if the matter is remitted back. 9. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We are of the opinion that since the retrospective application of proviso (iv) to section 80HHC is still pending with various Courts, the penalty issue arising out of non implementation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
