9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of law which does not require any interference. Thus the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Revenue : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.D.R. For the Assessee : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. And Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as CIT(A) ), arising out of the rectification order passed under section 154 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 11 of Rs. 3,97,01,626/-, The assessee had filed his ITR on 29.09.2015 u/s 139(4) of the Act alongwith Form 10B. Later, CPC sent communication to assessee. Assessee again filed return of income on 11.03.2016 alongwith Form 108. This revised return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) on 11.10.2016. Vide intimation order u/s 143(1), CPC disallowed the cost of acquisition of securities of Rs. 80,00,000/-. But no demand was raised since assessee has negative income. Aggrieved with this order, assessee filed rectification request to CPC on 16.01.2018. An order u/s 154 was passed by the CPC on 01.09.2019 giving credit of cost of acquisition of securities but disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 7. Per contra Ld. Sr. Counsel Shri Tushar Hemani appearing for the assessee submitted that assessee had filed rectification application merely for getting credit of cost of acquisition of securities pursuant to which such credit was allowed by CPC while passing rectification order. However, while doing so, CPC denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act without assigning any reasons whatsoever either making such disallowance or for deviating from the view taken earlier while passing intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 11-10-2016 allowing exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Thus CPC became functus officio after passing intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act in so far as the issue as to exemption u/s. 11 of the Act is concerned. Thus in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
