Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
This appeal is filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-26(1), Mumbai against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2008-09 passed on 15thSeptember 2021 raising solitary grounds of appeal against allowing the claim under Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The brief fact of the case shows that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of builders and developers, it filed its return of income declaring total
Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), challengingthe reopening of the assessment and also, on the merits of the case. The learned CIT (A) noted that this issue has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench 23rdFebruary as per order dated 2017 in for A.Y. 2006-07. He therefore held that as the very foundation for initiation of action under Section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2008-09 was passed on facts and findings for A.Y. 2006-07 which after the decision of the co-ordinate Bench ceased to exist and therefore, the reopening was quashed. Revenue is aggrieved with that order and has preferred the appeal before us. 06. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The ground of appeal raised by the learned Assessing Officer in the above appeal are as under: -
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, though the mandatory details required for deduction under Section 80IB was not provided in audit report in Form No.10CCB.”
The learned Assessing Officer has not challenged the order of the learned CIT (A), wherein reopening of the assessment proceedings is quashed. The learned Assessing Officer has challenged the order only on the merits of disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. The learned CIT (A) has not decided the issue on merits of the case. He is merely quashed the reopening of the assessment because the original functional material for the reopening was the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2006-07 that has already been decided for 2006-07 in favor of the assessee. Therefore, as the order of the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2006-07 ceased to exist, naturally, reopening made on that basis cannot survive. Therefore, on this ground
In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2022.