GAYA PRASAD BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD

ITA 375/ALLD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 August 2021AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise the issue of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction before the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal did not express any view on the merits of the jurisdictional issue or other grounds raised.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 27,32,000/-, significantly higher than the returned income. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT(A), who granted partial relief. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, raising multiple grounds.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the assessment order due to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also considered other grounds related to disallowance of interest and commission expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 127,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.A
For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.07.2021Pronounced: 04.08.2021

PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.09.2018 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds.

1.

Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is perverse in as much as there was no consent for withdrawal of Ground of Appeal No 2 raised by the assessee before the CIT (A), concerning the disallowance of interest payment to the tune of Rs. 3, 77,803/-, whereas there was no concession given to such an extent by the assessee. It appears that the counsel of the assessee was induced by the CIT (A), in according such consent. It is settled principle of law that notio

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →