9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nil Bhandari For the Respondent : Mr. Anjay Kothari ORDER 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee and dismissing the appeal preferred by the Department against the order of CIT(A). 2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 25.07.2007 framed the following substantial question of law:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned ITAT was legally justified in allowing benefit of telescoping/set off without properly taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the law applicable? 3. Counsel for the appellant has specifically contended that the third member while deciding the matter on the ground of limitation under Section 158 BD has committed serious error in appeal before the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessment order has attained finality. 5. Counsel for the respondent has contended that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.49/2003 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Vs. M/s.Somani Industries, A-85, Road NO.9, VKI Area, Jaipur decided on 03.01.2017) and decision of Gujarat High Court in Chetnaben J Shah Leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the contention that the appeal is required to be preferred before the Tribunal and such contention was not raised before the third member and limitation issue is a mixed question of law and facts can be raised any time. 8. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The issue of limitation is answered in favour of the assessee in the cross objection and again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
