Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI
(PAN : AADCB0147R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Vinay Meena, CA REVENUE BY : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 31.01.2023 Date of Order : 02.02.2023 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of ld. CIT (A)-2, New Delhi dated 30.08.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.
2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1) That the Assessing Officer has erred both on facts and in law in assuming and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2 ['CIT(A)'] has further erred in confirming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), disregarding the facts that the ingredients for applying the provisions of Section 147 of the Act were missing and thus the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act was incorrect in law and the order passed by the Assessing Officer 2) That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in reopening and the CIT(A) further erred in confirming the assessment under section 147 of the Act merely on the change of opinion on the same material facts examined in original assessment wherein no new facts have come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. 3) That the Assessing Officer/ CIT(A) have erred both on facts and in law in disregarding the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and in ITO vs Techspan India Private Ltd. & Anr. (2018) 404 ITR 101 302 CTR 74 (SC).
4) That the Assessing Officer/ CIT(A) have erred both on facts and in law in not appreciating that a detailed factual and legal submission was submitted by the Appellant before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on January 31, 2014 wherein the Appellant had made full disclosure.
5) That the Assessing Officer / CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in by not appreciating the fact that there is no revenue loss in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act.” 3. At the outset, in this case, the assessee has filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal which reads as under :- “The above mentioned appeal is fixed for hearing on 31st January 2023. In this regard, we wish to humbly submit as under: -
1. The CIT(A) has decided the matter related to activation revenue in favour of the Appellant Company on merits. However, the CIT(A), has decided matter against the Appellant Company on jurisdiction of section 147 of Act.
We understand that, the Revenue Department has not filed appeal against order passed by the CIT(A) on the issue ./2019 related to activation revenue as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP in the case ofPr.CIT vs. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd [2019] 108 taxmann.com 333 (SC) on the similar matter. In view of the above, as the issue related to activation revenue has already reached its finality, hence, the Appellant Company is withdrawing captioned appeal.” 4. In the light of the aforesaid application of the assessee to withdraw the appeal, we hereby dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on this 2nd day of February, 2023.