9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the order has not been passed on merits and it has interpreted Section 249(4)(a) of the Act which deals with the issue of entertaining an appeal in the case where amount is deposited, though it may be prior to filing an appeal or after appeal. Since there is no merit in the appeal, the ITAT has remanded the matter back to the CIT (A) for adjudication on merits based on the law laid down in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta [ 1988 (8) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT Vs. K Satish Kumar Singh [ 2012 (4) TMI 213 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by restoring it back to the ld. CIT(A), ignoring the fact that the assessee has not made payment of full amount of tax on the income declared in the Return not only by the date of filing of appeal before CIT(A) but also even now huge amount of due tax remains unpaid? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by restoring it back to the ld. CIT(A), ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Apex COurt in the case of Pawan Kumar Laddha [2010] 190 Taxman 169(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in clear terms has held that precondition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ) Date of filing of return as per the notice u/s 153A Income declared in return u/s 153A(in Rs. ) Additional income offered, if any (in Rs. ) 2006-07 28.11.2006 45,94,000/- 10.09.2013 45,94,000/- - 2007-08 31.10.2007 64,15,910/- 31.05.2012 66,62,640/- 2,46,730/- 2008-09 30.09.2008 58,75,730/- 31.05.2012 1,29,57,730/- 70,82,000/- 2009-10 30.09.2009 9,70,460/- 31.05.2012 7,60,64,720/- 7,50,94,260/- 2010-11 30.09.2010 1,15,98,650/- 31,05.2012 9,28,62,960/- 8,12,64,310/- 2011-12 30.09.2011 20,20,32,280/- 29.05.2012 20,20,32,280/- NIL 5. Accordingly, the scrutiny assessments u/s 153A r/W Sec 144 of the Act was completed on 29.09.2015 determining total income of Rs. 80,04,04,450/- for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned orders of ld. CIT(A) and the appeals for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2011-12 are remanded to the record of the Ld. CIT (A) for adjudication on merits after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. The ITAT set aside the order of Assessing officer as well as CIT(A) and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent (Assessee). Being aggrieved, the appellant/revenue is before this Court in the present appeal." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned ITAT has erred in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent assessee relying on the judgment passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed after filing of an appeal. 10. From perusal of the order of ITAT, it is clear that the order has not been passed on merits and it has interpreted Section 249(4)(a) of the Act which deals with the issue of entertaining an appeal in the case where amount is deposited, though it may be prior to filing an appeal or after appeal. 11. Since there is no merit in the appeal, the ITAT has remanded the matter back to the CIT (A) for adjudication on merits based on the law laid down in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and CIT Vs. K Satish Kumar Singh(supra) and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that no question of law, muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
