9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) therefore, ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits to the aforesaid extent. In view of preceding analysis, first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It is not necessary for us to answer the remaining substantial questions of law in view of our conclusion to first question of law. In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits and in respect of the grounds, which were not the subject matter of notice under Section 263 of the Act. - I.T.A. NO. 102 OF 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee of ₹ 3,50,00,000/- on the ground that the amount is paid on 08.11.2004 by invoking the provisions of Section 43B of the Act on the fact and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a Government of Karnataka undertaking incorporated on 02.06.2003 to canalize sale of Indian Made Liquor and Beer in the State. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2004-05 on 01.11.2004 declaring an income of ₹ 28,46,907/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.10.2006 disallowed the privilege fee of ₹ 3,50,00,000/- under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) vide order dated 18.01.2012. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the appeal is maintainable in respect of the issues which were not subject matter of notice issued under Section 263 of the Act and ought to have adjudicated the matter in respect of privilege fee in respect of Rs.,3,50,00,000/-. It is also urged that the authorities failed to appreciate the fact that scope of revision under Section 263 of the Act is limited to the grounds in respect of which notice under Section 263 of the Act is issued. It is therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
