9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. For the Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR) ORDER PER BENCH ITA No. 2605/Del/2018 has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 30.03.2018 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, [ Ld. CIT(A) , for short] in Appeal No. -1722-1249-1160-516 and ITA No. 2606/Del/2018 has also been filed by the Assessee against separate order dated 30.03.2018 of Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar in Appeal No. 5920-6403-1140-117. For the sake of convenience and brevity these two appeals filed by Assessee in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT , for short) are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. The grounds of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law. ITA No. 2606/Del/2018 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in fact in dismissing the appeal filed by the Assessee, contesting the levy of penalty of ₹ 33,60,500/- u/s 271D of the Act, on the ground that the assessment order dated 29-03-2016 was set aside by the Pr. CIT Muzaffarnagar vide his order dated 13-03-2018 passed u/s 263 of the Act. While dismissing the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appeal filed by the assessee was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3,88,79,832 Disallowance of claim as to capital expenditure ₹ 1,14,775 (2.1) The Assessing Officer ( AO , for short), in paragraph 4 of the Assessment Order, taking notice of the audit report, also took the view that there was violation of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( I.T. Act , for short) on the part of the assessee, for which, according to the AO, penalty proceeding U/s 271D of I.T. Act were required to be initiated. Additional CIT, Range-1, Muzaffarnagar levied penalty amounting to ₹ 33,60,500/- U/s 271D of I.T. Act, vide order dated 05/12/2016. (2.2) The assessee filed aforesaid Appeal No. 1722-1249-1160-516 before the Ld. CIT(A) aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uous as the assessment order from which the same emanates does not exist as on date. Therefore, without going into merits of the submission of the appellant made during the appellate proceedings, the grounds of appeal as reproduced above are dismissed as the same have lost their relevant in view of the above facts. Relevant portion of order of Ld. CIT(A) in aforesaid Appeal No.- 5920- 6403-1140-11; 4. The appellant has made written submissions which are placed on record. It is gathered that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-03-2016 has been set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 13-03-2018 u/s 263 of the Act with the direction to pass the fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 13.03.2018 of Ld. Pr. CIT and allowed assessee s appeal. (3) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee without adjudicating the disputed issues on merits, on the ground that the appeals had become infructuous after the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2018 of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed U/s 263 of I.T. Act wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT had set aside the aforesaid Assessment order dated 29.03.2016. However, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted, now that the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2018 of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed U/s 263 of I.T. Act has been quashed by ITAT vide aforesaid order dated 09.10.2018; the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) should be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
