9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, as per the ratio laid down in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT], the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not valid and consequently, the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is also not valid. - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly the facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of construction of irrigation projects, canals, roads and related work. The works are taken on contract and also on subcontract basis. A survey operation u/s 133A was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 25/03/2010. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 30/12/2011 determining the taxable income at ₹ 20,77,51,740/- against the returned income of ₹ 14,75,55,600/- by making various additions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), filed the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 653 days, as the assessee ought to have filed the appeal on or before 31/01/2012, but the same was filed on 21/10/2013, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the view that though it is important as to why the assessee took time to file the appeal belatedly with a delay of 653 days before the authorities, but, it is relevant that by adopting technical reasons, one should not be deprived off its legal right of appeal. Moreover, ld. CIT(A) has applied his energy to justify how the assessee cannot file the appeal, rather than, extending helping hand in rendering proper justice. In our considered view, assessee should be given another opportunity to put forth its case considering the fact that in the earlier AY, it has a favourable case before the CIT(A) and ITAT. Therefore, we remit this case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue in hand on merits by giving proper opportunity of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-II ought to have made a speaking order regarding the confirmation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the disallowance of ₹ 1,31,50,000/-. 3.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-II, erred in confirming Penalty U/s.271 (1)(c) regarding disallowance of cash payments u/s 40A(3) amounting to ₹ 1,73,00,000/-. 4.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-II, erred in confirming Penalty U/s.271(1)(c ) regarding disallowance of hire charges on Tractors, u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to ₹ 50,85,000/-. 11.1 The assessee has also raised the following additional ground rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther hand relied on the orders of revenue authorities. 15. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) wherein the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, in which, the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the revenue, who came in appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on a decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, [2013] 359 ITR 565/210 allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
