TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. Therefore, these grounds have not been authorized by the ld. Commissioner for the purpose of filing the appeals before the Tribunal and further these are not arising out of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A). - ITA No. 345/Agra/2011 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2012 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, JJ, Appellant by : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Advocate. ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior dated 20.06.2011 for the assessment year 2006-07 on the following grounds : 1. Whether on the facts and in the law the CIT(A) has erred in holding the assessment order dated 21.12.2009 for assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been authorized by the ld. CIT, Gwalior for filing the appeal on these grounds as per the authorization available on record. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and also submitted that he would intimate as to how the above mistake has crept in filing the appeal on such grounds of appeal which have not been authorized and approved by the ld. CIT, by next day. However, nothing is explained in this regard. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and gone through the material on record. The AO passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.12.2008, which was subject matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The AO applied net profit rate of 5% as against net profit shown by the assessee at the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s infructuous. This ground is not decided by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order and further the assessment order in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was dated 30.12.2008 and not 21.12.2009. Further on ground No. 2, the Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.66,13,271/- which also does not arise out of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 3, 4 5 are also not arising out of the order of the ld. CIT(A). According to section 253(2) of the IT Act, the Commissioner may, if objects to any order passed by Commissioner (appeals), direct the Assessing Officer to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against such order. Therefore, before filing of the appeal by the Assessing Officer, the directions/authorization of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing in the balance sheet of the succeeding year and the AO accepted the genuineness of the same in the proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act because no adverse inference has been drawn against the assessee. The ld. CIT in the authorization approved the ground of appeal challenging the deletion of addition of Rs.1,00,000/- because the ld. CIT(A) considered the fresh evidences without affording any opportunity to the AO. Such ground is not raised by the AO in ground No. 7 as above. Therefore, whatever ground was approved by the ld. CIT for the purpose of filing the appeal before the Tribunal has not been taken care by the AO. Therefore, ground No. 7 is also infructuous and is not approved by the ld. CIT for the purpose of filing the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of filing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) found that the interest on housing loan has been paid through bank. It has been submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed set off. In the absence of any contrary material on record, we do not justify any interference in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 8 of the Revenue s appeal is, accordingly dismissed. In view of the above discussion, we hold that ground No. 1 to 5 are not arising out of the impugned order and have not been approved by the ld. CIT. We further hold that ground No. 6 7 have not been authorized and raised as per direction of the ld. CIT. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue on these grounds is not maintainable and is infructuous. There is no merit in ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|