9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short) in ITA No.923/Bang/2013 relating to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The appellant - assessee is a company engaged in building, promoting and developing of land. Relating to the assessment year in question, the appellant filed its return of income and claimed deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim made by the assessee, against which the appeal was filed before the CIT (Appeals), who by an order dated 28.03.2013, placing reliance on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in the case of Primal Projects (P) Ltd., (139 TTJ 233), held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal. Therefore, it is not necessary to answer the substantial questions of law. The Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh and shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall record a finding whether the assessee has complied with the conditions laid down in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act." 3. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee has preferred this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the factual aspects indeed were required to be considered by the Assessing Officer as no factual finding was given either by the Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals) inasmuch as the claim of the assessee that each industry is an independent and separate unit, capable of functioning on its own. Even as regards the applicability of Primal Projects (P) Ltd., referred to, by the assessee requires to be analysed by the Assessing Officer depending upon the factual aspects. Hence, no exception can be found with the impugned order. Accordingly, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have carefully considered the arguments adva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity which has got a co-extensive power with that of the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals). Accordingly, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer is not the solution to the litigation which would open a third round of litigation making the assessee to suffer and the same is nothing but harassment to both the parties, unnecessarily delaying the entire process of adjudication. Hence, without answering the substantial questions of law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order impugned and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the directions issued by this Court in ITA No.3/2015 dated 09.11.2020 in letter and spirit and comply the same in an expedite manner in accordance with law. 9. Hence, the following ORDER i) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
