9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led in several decisions and it will be beneficial to take note of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [ 2006 (8) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. This decision which was followed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding counsel for the appellant/revenue assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned junior standing counsel. There is a delay of 64 days in filing this appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue that notice has been served on the respondent/assessee but affidavit of service has not been filed. Taking note of the fact that the order impugned in this appeal is of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Commissioner is required to confine himself to the terms of notice and foreclosing consideration of any other issue or question of fact especially in view of the latest Supreme Court decision on this issue? We have heard Mr. Debasis Chowdhury, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Therefore, we find that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. For such reason, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. The stay application, IA NO.GA/2/2017 [OLD NO:GA/765/2017] also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
