9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n favour of assessee - ITA No. 1388/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2016 - Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri Vijay Mehta For The Respondent : Shri Vindo Kumar ORDER Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 9, Mumbai dated 08.01.2015 for A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 The assessment in the case on hand for A.Y. 2008-09 was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dated 30.11.2010 determining the assessee s income at ₹ 5,22,80,530/-, inter alia, allowing rebate of ₹ 1,22,15,102/- u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,055/-) paid by the assessee on the share transactions. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 4. Ground at Sr. Nos 2 4 4.1 At the outset of the hearing, the learned A.R. of the assessee submitted that the grounds at Sr. Nos 2 and 4 (supra) are general grounds, not calling for any adjudication thereon. In this view of the matter, grounds 2 and 4 are rendered infructuous and accordingly dismissed. 5. Ground No. 1 Validity of proceedings/order under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 5.1.1 In this ground, the assessee challenges the validity of the order passed by the AO under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.03.2013 for A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned A.R. According to the learned A.R. the invocation of jurisdiction under section 154 of the Act was void and bad in law as the order of the assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 dated 30.10.2010 did not contain any mistake apparent from the record, which are glaring and patent, requiring no elaborate discussions with respect to evidence or arguments. It is contended that the rebate under section 88E of the Act granted to the assessee was after thorough scrutiny and verification of relevant records, after which the AO taking note of the second proviso to section 88E(1) read with sub-section (2) thereof had restricted the rebate to ₹ 1,22,15,102/- as against ₹ 1,30,02,755/- claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2 of the said order. 5.3.2 On appeal, we find from a perusal of the impugned order that the learned CIT(A) did not address this issue raised in the original grounds of appeal (extracted at para 1.2 of the impugned order) brushing them aside as being not pressed. It is also seen that the learned CIT(A) has not acknowledged or adjudicated this very issue, challenging the validity of the order of the AO passed under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 22.03.2013, in ground No. 3 of the revised ground raised in submissions dated 22.10.2013 (placed at pg. 17 to 42 of the assessee s paper book). 5.3.3 In this regard we find that on identical facts, in respect of rebate under section 88E of the Act, the ITAT, Kolkata A Bench in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
