9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thaker,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. B. S. Soparkar For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) 1. As Tax Appeal No.214/2004 and Tax Appeal No.215/2004 arises out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal') and Tax Appeal No.692/2009 filed by the revenue can be said to be a cross appeal to Tax Appeal No.215/2004 filed by the assessee , all these appeals and as such as there is broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties to remand the matters to the learned tribunal to decide the same together afresh in accordance with law and on it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S)A No.314/ Ahd /2002 to consider the following substantial questions of law; (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Ahmedabad determining total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,29,20,847/- against undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 3,08,30,600/-? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Ahmedabad are contrary to the evidence and material on the record of the case, and, hence, perverse or not? (iii) Whether, on the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158 BC of the Act, the assessee -M/s. Ohm Developers preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Vide order dated 24/09/2002, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee whereby he reduced the addition of ₹ 2,97,15,401/- made by the Assessing Officer to ₹ 2,18,34,648/-. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in partly allowing the appeal and reducing the addition to ₹ 2,18,34,648/- and thereby not deleting the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal, being IT(SS)A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Ohm Organizers is concerned it raises the same questions of law, which are raised by another assessee -M/s. Ohm Developers raised in Tax Appeal No.215/2004. 6.3. Considering the fact that now so far as the appeal preferred by the revenue, being IT(SS)A No.314/ Ahd /2002, which was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee and reducing the addition of ₹ 2,97,15,401/- made by the Assessing Officer to ₹ 2,18,34,648/-, has not been decided on merits, the matter is required to be remanded to the learned tribunal to decide the said appeal on merits. 6.4. Tax Appeal No.215/2004 is preferred by the assessee against the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties seems to be reasonable and it will be in the interest of both the parties i.e. the assessee as well as the revenue. 8. In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and without further entering into the merits of the case and/or expressing anything on merits and/or without expressing anything on merits with respect to the questions raised in the present Tax Appeals in favour of either parties and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal dated 17/10/2008 in IT(SS)A No.314/ Ahd /2002 as well as the impugned orders passed by the learned tribunal da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
