9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 2006-2007 against the order dated 15.02.2011 of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 2. At the outset, the ld. A.R. Shri B. Ramana Kumar argued Ground No. 2 of the appeal which reads as under: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT failed to appreciate that the show cause notice intending to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessing Officer in an order passed u/s 143(3) dated 19.12.2008. He further submitted that the ld. CIT because of an audit objection which was stated by the auditors of the company in the audit report on the statement of accounts of the assessee company that since the installed capacity is not ascertainable by the Management as disclosed in the notes of account, the conditions regarding ach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer had examined and allowed the set off of loss to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. Shri Shaji P. Jacob argued that it will be seen from the assessment order placed on record that there is absolutely no discussion whatsoever on any of the issues or points by the Assessing Officer and income returned by the assessee was accepted as such by the Assessing Officer. Thus, from this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord, we find that the ld. CIT has stated in his order at page 2 that there was no discussion whatsoever on any issue or point by the Assessing Officer and the returned income of the assessee was accepted as such by him. On a query by the Bench that whether any enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer from the assessee on the issue of set off of loss u/s 72A of the Act and in response to the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
