9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment years 2013-14 to 2015- 16: - 1. "That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 154 dated 28.03.2024 even though there were no mistake apparent from record. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order and has erred in interpreting the order passed dated 23.07.2019 in respect of protective addition, more so when there was no mistake apparent from record and when such interpretation was not possible on facts and in law. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 23.07.2019 for AY 2013-14 and that too when there is no mistake apparent from record. Ld. Counsel submits that similar miscellaneous applications in assessee's own case were filed by the Revenue before Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed said miscellaneous applications inter-alia holding that there is no apparent error, vide Tribunal's order in MA No.204/Del/2023 at PB 162-167. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) purportedly rectifying and reviving the addition made in the hands of the assessee is beyond jurisdiction and beyond the scope of provision of section 154 and is liable to be quashed. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further made his submission as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out on substantive basis. The Co-ordinate bench, on appraisal of the facts carried out in the case of recipient, has rendered a favourable finding. Hence, the basis for additions made in the hands of the assessee and later modified by the CIT(A) is inconsistent with the order of Co-ordinate Bench and thus cannot be countenanced. The additions were made by the AO to the extent of the job work receipt billed to Orient Craft Ltd. which were reduced to 5% of expenses incurred by the assessee herein. Consequently, plea of the Revenue for restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer for examination of corresponding expenses does not emanate from the assessment order and therefore cannot be entertained. In the result, all the three a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orable finding. The basis for addition made in the hands of the assessee and later modified by Ld. CIT(A) is inconsistent with the order of the Co-ordinate Bench and this cannot be countenanced and accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee. In view of these findings of Hon'ble Tribunal in assessee's own case the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) purportedly by rectifying and reviving the addition made in the hands of the assessee is beyond jurisdiction and beyond the scope of provision of section 154 and is liable to be quashed and may please be so held." 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We find conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
