9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and quash the reassessment order for both the years under consideration. - decided in favour of assessee, - I.T.A. Nos. 7459 & 7460/Mum/2004 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Smt. Aarati Vissanji Shri Ajit C. Shah For the Respondent : Shri Jeetendra Kumar ORDER PER BENCH: These two appeals by the assessee are preferred against two separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, Mumbai dt. 9.8.2004 for assessment years 1998-99 1999-2000. In both these appeals the assessee has taken common grounds of appeal, therefore, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. By ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon several decisions in support of the claim and in particular, the Ld. Counsel strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd., in SLP No. CC 5711/2007 by which the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP from the judgement vide an order dt. 27.11.2006 in I.T Appeal No. 71/2006 of the High Court of Bombay at Panaji. The Hon ble High Court had confirmed the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1 5/PN/2001. The Ld. Counsel further drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 7626/M/04 in the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs JCIT wherein the Tribunal had the occasion to consider whether the supply o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H) as well as in the case of Mithesh Kumar Tripathi 280 ITR 16 (All.). Thus, the decision in the case of Gunnder Kaur is not in consonance with the judgement of the Hon ble Delhi High Court and hence we are bound to follow the Delhi High Court judgement on the issue. 5. The Tribunal at para-14.9 has followed the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Formento Resorts Hotes (supra). 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly submitted that completing the reassessment without supplying the reasons for the reopening of the assessment has made the reassessment order without jurisdiction and the same need to be quashed. In support of the order of the Revenue authorities, the Ld. DR drew our attention to the letter dt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
