9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 2,95,000 - Held that:- It appears that the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT, Delhi was for some reason not heard for many years and it was only on 25th August 2014 that it was taken up for hearing. In the impugned order, the ITAT Delhi notes that the ITAT, Jodhpur had already adjudicated, in the Assessee's appeal, the issues sought to be urged by the Revenue in its appeal regarding the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent : None ORDER 1. An unattested affidavit dated 24th August 2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax has been tendered in the Court. 2. The Court is informed by learned counsel for the Appellant that the aforementioned affidavit was sent to her only last week. The Court notes that this is despite the fact that four weeks time was granted on 1st July 2015 and again two more we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 2,95,000. 6. The CIT-IX, Delhi authorised the ITO, Ward-27 (2) Delhi to file a second appeal against the order of the CIT (A) Jodhpur. From the perusal of the affidavit tendered today in Court, it appears that while such appeal was filed by the Revenue before the ITAT on 26th December 2006. 7. However, the Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT-A, Jodhpur before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, the issues sought to be urged by the Revenue in its appeal regarding the additions made on account of brick production, clay excavation, carriage expenses and expenditure on water courses. It also took note that no application had been filed by the Revenue against the said order dated 21st September 2007 of the ITAT, Jodhpur. 9. The ITAT, Jodhpur already having dealt with the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
