9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . had also taken note of the fact that in the earlier years this issue had been sent back to the A.O. for verification and adjudication in the light of the findings of the Hon ble High Court. In the impugned year, since it was found that the verification had already been done by the CIT(A) himself which was in accordance with the findings of the Hon ble High Court, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on this count. The plea of the Revenue, therefore, that the issue needed to be restored back to the A.O. in the light of the decision of the I.T.A.T. in the earlier years, therefore, is based on incorrect appreciation of facts. We hold that there is clearly no error in the order of the I.T.A.T. and both the Miscellaneous Applications filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee filed the appeal before the Hon'ble ITA T and the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh referred back the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. In response to this, the then AO passed the order on 28.10.2015 and upheld addition made in the original assessment order against which the assesses did not file further appeal on this issue. c) In the A.Y. 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and further the Hon'ble ITAT also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. Hence, it is a covered matter in favor of revenue." 2. In effect, the Revenue has contended that identical issue in the case of the assessee in preceding assessment year i.e. assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 had been referred back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding years the issue, therefore, had been restored back to the A.O. to adjudicate the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act in the light of the above findings of the Hon'ble High Court, while in the impugned assessment year the I.T.A.T. had noted that the CIT(A) had himself verified this fact and had determined quantum of rental income allowable for deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act which fact had not been controverted by the Revenue during the course of hearing before the I.T.A.T. and therefore, in view of the above facts, the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) had been dismissed by the I.T.A.T. Our attention was drawn to the findings of the ITAT at para 22 of the order as under: "22. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the assessee and after due verification of the claim of the assessee." 5. The Ld. counsel for assessee contented that, therefore, there was no error in the order of the I.T.A.T. which had found that the issue had been adjudicated by the CIT(A) himself in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, there were no requirement to restore back the matter to the A.O. as done in the preceding years. 6. We have considered the rival contentions carefully and have also gone through the impugned orders sought to be rectified. We do not find any merit in the present Miscellaneous Application. The issue of the allowability of assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act in the impugned orders, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
