9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax (Appeals) -4, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the A.Ys.2006-07. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 14,10,000/-u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that penalty u/s. 271(0(c) had been initiated initiated by the predecessor Assessing Officer in the case of same assessee for the same assessment year on additions made in respect of the same issues and the penalty proceedings had been dropped by the Assessing Officer in accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e normal provisions of I. T. Act and declared book profit u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs. 98,57,631/- Based on the direction of DRP, the final order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) was passed on 18.08.2010 assessing total income of Rs. 4,80,19,930/- under the normal provisions of I. T. Act and book profit u/s 115JB of the I. T. Act of Rs. 1,97,48,820/- by making the following addition read as under.:- Normal Provisions of I. T. Act (i) TP adjustments Rs. 1,24,73,795/- (ii) Cash expenses Rs. 26,45,716/- (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the I. T. Act Rs. 11,85,990/- Book Profit u/s 115JB of I. T. Act (i) Disallowance u/s 14A of I. T. Act Rs. 11,85,990/- (ii) Provisions for doubtful debts Rs. 87,05,196/- Accordingly, the AO invoked the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 7. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on all the issues and restored the matter before the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. 8. Since the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA. No.3847/M/2017 for the A.Y.2007-08 is having similar controversy, therefore, the finding above is quite applicable to the facts of the present case also as mutatis mutandis, therefore, the present appeal is hereby also allowed accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
