9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tner of the assessee firm for the same assessment year. Both the Commissioner and the Tribunal, however, found that no re-assessment proceeding could be initiated merely because of action taken by the Customs Department. We also had the occasion to examine similar issue for the same assessment year concerning an associate firm of the assessee, M/s. More International [ 2018 (2) TMI 1929 - CALCU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an application seeking condonation of delay of 171 days in filing the appeal. 2. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Assessee agrees to disposal of this application without filing any affidavit. 3. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and are satisfied that there was sufficient reason for which this appeal could not be filed within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year concerned in this appeal is 1996-97. The Assessing Officer had added to the total income of the Assessee a sum of ₹ 1,22,30,840/- and directed initiation of penalty proceeding as well in the assessment order passed on 31st March, 2004 under the provisions of Sections 147/143(3)/254 of the Act. The cause for reopening the case of the assessee was a proceeding initiated against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning an associate firm of the assessee, M/s. More International (ITAT No. 353 of 2016) and we upheld the order of the Tribunal in that appeal. That decision was delivered on 8th February, 2018. In our judgment, the reasoning of the Tribunal in the decision which we upheld is also almost identical to that in the present case, in relation to the order appealed against. So far as the present appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
