9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce he had passed the assessment order in his role, as a quasi-judicial authority, he could not have been served with the chargesheet for performing such functions unless his action could be slotted into exceptions adverted hereinabove. In our opinion, the manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Tribunal, is less than satisfactory. The action of the respondent which was impugned by the petitioner before Tribunal has serious ramifications for petitioner, and thus, could not have dealt with the matter so nonchalantly. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. - W.P.(C) 11634/2021 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Kuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase before the Tribunal and before us as well that, insofar as the earlier assessment years, i.e., AY 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 are concerned, the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act was disallowed, as the assessee had claimed the same vis-a-vis parcels of land. According to the petitioner, it is for this reason that, the order passed by the then Assessing Officer, disallowing deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for AY 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short CIT(A) ], and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short ITAT ]. 3.5. Insofar as AY 2009-2010 was concerned, the CIT, in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, had concededly, even according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be examined. At the same time, the approach is required to be a bit guarded. Mere existence of a second view cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings. In the instant case, the respondents pointed out some abnormal features. We do not propose to deal with the same lest it impacts the inquiry. We do not find any serious infirmity in the impugned charge memo. The applicant can offer his explanation. There is no reason to believe that the Disciplinary Authority would not appreciate the relevant facts. 5. In our opinion, the manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Tribunal, is less than satisfactory. The action of the respondent which was impugned by the petitioner before Tribunal has serious ramifications for petitioner, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
