9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 2041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Hitesh Mehta and others was attempted to be established. The Special Counsel, appearing for the Revenue, would submit before the Tribunal that since similar issues are involved in the appeal of Smt. Pratima Mehta, the assessee before us, when the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the AO for passing a de novo assessment order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, then, he would have no objection to this course. The argument was that no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter as the Books of Account were not audited. Tribunal has found that all these arguments were common and to the earlier cases. On facts, it found no justification for taking a different view. We do not think such an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out by the assessee. In the absence of the Books of Account, non-cooperation from the assessee and failure to comply with the Notice under Section 142(1), the original assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determining the total income at ₹ 36,75,72,411/. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on 31-8-2005, passed the order setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer and that of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. 4. During such proceedings, the assessee by letter dated 27-8-2006 submitted copies of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta, Smt. Jyoti H. Mehta and the very assessee before the Tribunal and before us, Smt. Pratima H. Mehta, and importantly Hitesh S. Mehta. The Tribunal found that the facts are identical to the case of Hitesh Mehta. On fact, therefore, it passed the very same order of remand. 8. Mr. Kotangle would submit that the Tribunal has not applied its mind but mechanically passed an order of remand relying on its earlier orders. That is an approach not supportable in law. Mr. Kotangle would submit that he be allowed to point out from the record that the remand was not warranted at all. There is a perversity on the part of the Tribunal when it allowed a remand for the asking. It is in these circumstances that he would submit that this appeal be entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Tribunal. That is how the commonality to the case of Hitesh Mehta and others was attempted to be established. The Special Counsel, appearing for the Revenue, would submit before the Tribunal that since similar issues are involved in the appeal of Smt. Pratima Mehta, the assessee before us, when the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for passing a de novo assessment order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, then, he would have no objection to this course. The argument was that no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter as the Books of Account were not audited. 11. The Tribunal has found that all these arguments were common and to the earlier cases. On facts, it fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
