9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri K. Raju, G.M. Legal Taxation For the Department : Ms. M. Subashri, JCIT ORDER PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai dated 30.01.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. The assessee also filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) 6, Chennai dated 30.01.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13 challenging the ex-parte order with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer had reason to believe that the assessee has to incur some expenditure embedded in the indirect expenditure of the assessee towards maintaining these investments. When it was pointed out to the assessee, vide letter dated 29.02.2016, the AR of the assessee has submitted that Hyundai Steel India held majority stake in Automotive Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd. [ASPI]. This investment is a strategic investment and has been made out business expediency and not with an intention of earning any dividend income. It was further submitted before the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not earned any dividend income from ASPI. However, the Assessing Officer has observed that the investment made by the assessee is not an invest-and-forget activit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without affording any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) since the assessee s authorized signatory was not available due to his business visit and thereby the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR has not seriously objected to the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted the assessee may be given one more opportunity of being heard for presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
