9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith u/s.143(3)/147 cannot be accepted. In the present appeal, the assessee has not raised grounds based on the order u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act and further not challenged the additions in the order u/s.143(3)/147, and we are of the opinion that appeal is not maintainable accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. - ITA No.444/CTK/2016, ITA No.448/CTK/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2018 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2, Because that The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals- 3), Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by conforming the addition of land development expenses amounting to ₹ 60,98,560/- without appreciating the business necessity of such expenses which is contrary to the evidence on record and same is liable to be allowed. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted in appellate proceedings that the appeal filed u/s.143(3) is infructuous as the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the order u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal u/s.143(3) as infructuous and observed that with the passing of order u/s.143(3)/147 dated 28.8.2014 for assessment year 2009-2010 in the case of the assessee, the earlier order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on 23.12.2011 and subsequently notice u/s.148 was issued. The contention of ld A.R. is that the order u/s.143(3) is merged with the order u/s.143(3)/147 on 28.8.2014 and also considered the grounds u/s.143(3). We are of the opinion that the order u/s.143(3) dated 23.12.2011 and order u/s.143(3)/147 dated 28.8.2014 are two separate appelalte orders and the submission of ld A.R. that the order u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
