9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record are as under :- 3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of operation of Airlines under the name and style of Indigo. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.18,26,11,80,910/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act vide order dated 19.04.2021 and the total income was determined at Rs.24,31,89,53,536/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 14.09.2022 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the captioned appeal has been settled by the assessee under Vivad-Se-Visvas Scheme 2020 and Form No.5 has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE - ON MERITS Re: Validity of assessment order 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 19.04.2021, having been passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre (herein under referred to as 'assessing officer"/"NaFAC) without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 144B of the Act was illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CTT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order was illegal and bad in law since the same was passed without issuing any draft assessment order or show cause notice for the variations propose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y because the appellant had taken the aircraft on operating lease would not alter the character of the "Supplier credits" received from being a capital receipt to revenue receipt. 3.3 That the assessing officer erred in not appreciating that merely because the appellant had amortized the credits over the period of lease and netted off the proportionate credits with the amount of lease rental would not alter the character of the "Supplier credits".. 3.4 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the supplier credits is nothing but commission taxable under the provisions of the Act. 3.5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the impugned appeal has already been settled by the assessee under VSV Scheme and Form No.5 has been allotted. He submitted that the aforesaid finding of CIT(A) is factually incorrect. He submitted that assessee had opted for VSV Scheme which was with respect to the appeal for penalty levied u/s 271DA and not with respect to the present appeal. To support his aforesaid contention, he pointed to Form No.1 & 2 filed by assessee for settlement of appeal filed u/s 271DA and the copy of which is placed at page 34 to 44 of the paper book. He thereafter pointed to Form No.3 being the certificate issued by PCIT under Sub Section (1) of Section 5 of Vivad Se Visvas Act, 2020 for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
