9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order dated 14.8.2015 that he has given effect to the order of the CIT(A) passed in the Asstt.Year 2004-05 also, though, it was passed in the Asstt.Year 2005-06. Had the AO entertained his rectification application and proceeded to dispose of in accordance with law, then, he would have vacated his order dated 9.3.2015 passed in the Asstt.Year 2004-05. There is no debatable issue in that, rather his order dated 9.3.2015 was patently illegal. AO ought to have entertained the application of the assessee, and ought to have rectified his order dated 9.3.2015. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside both the impugned orders i.e. order dated 1.9.2016 passed by the CIT(A) and dated 14.8.2015 passed by the AO. We allow the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the Asstt.Year 2005-06. The following finding of the ld.CIT(A) in this regard is worth to note. It reads as under: page no.13 However, the addition is directed to be restricted to the amount of ₹ 10 lakh which has been accepted by the appellant during the year. Addition of ₹ 26.4 lacs received in Financial Year 2003-04 cannot be made during the present year. Necessary action may be taken by the AO in that year for taxing that amount. The disallowance of interest made by the AO on this loan is also upheld on substantive basis. 4. The ld.AO has given effect to this order of the ld.CIT(A) and passed the following order in the Asstt.Year 2004-05: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In this connection, 1 would like to inform you that the Hon'ble CIT(A) - 2, Ahmedabad has directed to its order No.CIT(A)-2/ITO, SK Ward-3/91/13-14 dated 16/01/2015 vide para No. 4.3, the amount of closing balance of ₹ 26,44,000/- received by assessee for F.Y. 2003-04 is to be added in A. Y. 2004-05 and this office was given appeal effect order of retrospective effect to the order of Hon'ble CIT(A) s order for A. Y. 2005-06. 3. In this regard, your rectification application u/s. 154 of the 1. T. Act is hereby rejected and you are dissatisfied to this appeal effect order for A. Y. 2004-05 dated 09/03/2015, you may be preferred an appeal before Hon'ble CIT(A)-2. Ahmedabad. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as observed in the impugned order dated 14.8.2015 that he has given effect to the order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in the Asstt.Year 2004-05 also, though, it was passed in the Asstt.Year 2005-06. Had the AO entertained his rectification application and proceeded to dispose of in accordance with law, then, he would have vacated his order dated 9.3.2015 passed in the Asstt.Year 2004-05. There is no debatable issue in that, rather his order dated 9.3.2015 was patently illegal. The AO ought to have entertained the application of the assessee, and ought to have rectified his order dated 9.3.2015. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside both the impugned orders i.e. order dated 1.9.2016 passed by the ld.CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
