9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rightly held by Ld. CIT(A). Even in the additional ground, the assessee is seeking quashing of intimation which has merely processed assessee s revised return of income and the same has been issued in the same name in which the revised return has been filed by the assessee. If the intimation was to be quashed, as per assessee s additional ground, then the assessee would be liable to refund back the refund granted under the said intimation. There is a vast difference in mere processing of return vis- -vis framing of assessment. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the additional ground raised before us. The same stand dismissed. Proceeding further, we find that Form No.35 was filed within time and the assessee was diligent in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeal was filed in the name of a non-existent assessee. 2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including intimation issued by revenue to assessee u/s 143(1) dated 19/06/2017. 3. The material facts are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2015. However, the return was revised and again revised on 30/03/2017. The final revised return was processed u/s 143(1) and intimation was issued by Centralized Processing Center (CPC) on 19/06/2017 in the name of Blue Star Design and Engineering Limited (since merged with Blue Star Engineering Electronics Limited). In the intimation, the amount of refund due to the assessee was reduced since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the appeal so filed would be invalid one as rightly held by Ld. CIT(A). 6. Even in the additional ground, the assessee is seeking quashing of intimation which has merely processed assessee s revised return of income and the same has been issued in the same name in which the revised return has been filed by the assessee. If the intimation was to be quashed, as per assessee s additional ground, then the assessee would be liable to refund back the refund granted under the said intimation. There is a vast difference in mere processing of return vis- -vis framing of assessment. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the additional ground raised before us. The same stand dismissed. 7. Proceeding further, we find that Form No.35 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
