9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed before the ITAT. The adjudication on the merits of the issue is only of academic interest. Hence, holding that ld. CIT(A) has held the assessment to be without jurisdiction and the revenue has not challenged the same, in our considered opinion, the adjudication on merits is infructuous. Accordingly, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed being infructuous. - ITA No.1767/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year:2008-09) - - - Dated:- 6-2-2019 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Appellant by : Shri Ajay Kumar Respondent by : Shri S. K. Tyagi O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 29.12.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2008-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought forward unabsorbed depreciation of ineligible business unit need not be first off against the income from eligible unit before allowing the deduction u/s 10A OF THE Income Tax Act, 1961 even after the circular No.7 of 2013 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the issue. 2. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. The learned departmental Representative supported the order of the assessing officer on the issues on merits on which the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee. The learned counsel of the assessee at the outset submitted that in this case the ld. CIT(A) has also held that the reopening was not valid and he has quashed the assessment. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that since the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopening was done in violation of the prohibition stipulated in the first proviso to sec. 147 of the Act since in this case the assessment was reopened after lapse of more than 4 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. If at all there was any income which the A.O. had failed to bring to tax, appropriate remedial action would have been taken in this case u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the ground of appeal no. 2 3 allowed. 4. From the above it is amply evident that the ld. CIT(A) has held that reopening is not justified. In this view of the matter when the ld. CIT(A) has held that reopening is not justified it is amply evident that if revenue was aggrieved, it should have raised a ground in this regard. A reading of the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
