9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ITAT, in this case, after holding that the revised return was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, should have restored the original return before the AO and, thereafter, directed the AO to assess the original return in accordance with law. This would have afforded both, the Revenue as well as the Assessee, effective opportunity to putforth their respective versions on the issue of disallowances which, normally arise in the course of such assessment proceedings. Impugned order made by the ITAT, to the extent it purports to delete various disallowances or to finalise the assessment, must be interfered with. This later portion of the impugned order is, therefore, set aside. - Decided in favour of the Revenue and against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. However, it was pointed out that the correct offer of income was reflected in the original return itself and, therefore, it is only the original return which may be assessed. 5. The AO, by order dated 30/12/2009, rejected the Assessee's contention and concluded the assessment by accepting the revised return filed. 6. The Assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)(Appeals) which appeal was dismissed by order dated 12/12/2012. Therefore, the Assessee instituted an appeal bearing ITA No.17/PNJ/2013 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), questioning the assessment order dated 30/12/2009 and the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 12/12/2012. 7. The ITAT, by the impugned order dated 28/6/2013, held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that the ITAT was justified itself in holding that the disallowances were required to be deleted. He submitted that the findings of the ITAT are based upon the material on record and this is not a case where the ITAT can be said to have exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it. For all these reasons, he submits that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. According to us, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the revised return was filed by the Assessee beyond the prescribed period of limitation and, therefore, the AO could not have proceeded to assess only the revised return or finalized the proceedings only on the basis of the revised return. However, after having reached t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
