9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petition or during the course of hearing of the petition. On perusal of the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Chennai under Rule 15 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, it appears that the appeal was filed by the Revenue in the regular course and not on the basis of audit objection. Therefore, it is obvious that para 8 of Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by CBDT is not applicable. We find that against dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue in the case of DCIT v. Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. [ 2017 (3) TMI 1825 - ITAT CHENNAI] the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon ble Madras High Court [ 2017 (12) TMI 1604 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . While dismissing the appeal filed by the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be dismissed. He relied on the decision in the case of PCIT v. Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. in T.C.A. No. 579 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017. 3. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record. In this case, the return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short] on 05.02.2004. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 19.05.2006 and duly served on the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee in its letter dated 23.06.2006, stated that the original return already filed may be taken as one in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In the same letter, the assessee asked reasons for reopening the assessment. Notice under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. On perusal of the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Chennai under Rule 15 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, it appears that the appeal was filed by the Revenue in the regular course and not on the basis of audit objection. Therefore, it is obvious that para 8 of Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by CBDT is not applicable. 6. Further, we find that against dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue in the case of DCIT v. Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. in M.P. No. 214/Mds/2016 [in I.T.A. No. 887/Mds/2015] dated 03.03.2017, the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon ble Madras High Court in T.C.A. No. 579 of 2017. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Hon ble Jurisdictional H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
