9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. C. 1. This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "ITAT"), Pune Bench in Income Tax Appeal No.149/PN/08. The Assessment Year in question is 2005-06. By the order delivered on 19th November 2010, the Tribunal has allowed the Appeal preferred by the respondent - assessee. The Revenue is therefore in Appeal invoking section 206A of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... going through the case records, the Commissioner of Income TaxI Kolhapur, found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He noted the issues on which the order could be said to be so vitiated. He, therefore, directed a notice to be issued. After giving an opportunity to the assessee and considering the assessee's submissions, the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssesse's own case for the Assessment Year 2003-04 and 2004-05. This order was delivered in Income Tax Appeal Nos.143 and 144/PN/2008. Apart therefrom on merits also, the ITAT found that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view. The question was debatable. In such circumstances, the power under section 263 could not have been invoked by the Commissioner. The ground raising id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly because the assessee was in the very (milk and dairy) business. The agreement was reached between the assessee and supplier of milk to purchase the milk. The purchase of milk was the predominant factor in the transaction and not the hiring of truck to transport the same. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal allowed the Appeal. 5. We are of the opinion that such an exercise of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
