9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the same is a mistake apparent on record, is illegal and void beyond his jurisdiction. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and quash the order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 1166/H/2019 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2021 - Satbeer Singh Godara , Member ( J ) And Laxmi Prasad Sahu , Member ( A ) For the Appellant : P. Murali Mohana Rao For the Respondents : Rohit Muzumdar ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - 3, Hyderabad's order dated 17/05/2019 for AY 2015-16 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Further the assessee has also filed a petition for admission of additional grounds, which are as under: 11. As per the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal power Co. Ltd. v. CIT: (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon'ble ITAT has jurisdiction to examine the question of law which has been taken before the ITAT for the first time though not taken before the first appellate authority. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of A.O. passed u/s. 154 without appreciating the fact that the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trate that the said expense is laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and, therefore, the same is not allowed as per the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act. 4. When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that originally the case was selected for limited scrutiny, in which the AO has accepted the income returned by the assessee and, therefore, the order passed u/s. 154 is incorrect as per law. Moreover, the AO has not converted the limited scrutiny into full/complete scrutiny. He, therefore, contended that the order passed by the AO u/s. 154 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
