Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
: Mrs.Manasvini Bajpai, Adv. अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT *+यथ) क, ओर से /Respondent by : 05.08.2019 सुनवाई क, तार�ख/Date of Hearing : घोषणा क, तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore, in Appeal No.93/15-16 dated 30.09.2016 for the AY 2007-08.
Mr.Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mrs.Manasvini Bajpai, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee.
ITA No.3317/Chny/2016 :- 2 -:
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the appeal had originally been disposed off by an order dated 26.02.2018. However, Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal, which reads as follows:
Ground No. 3 - Incorrect computation of taxable income and consequential demand raised in the impugned order 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate following grounds taken by the Appellant in the appeal filed before him: (a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in computing total income of the Appellant at Rs.121,577,927/- on account of the disallowance made in the impugned order under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act without taking cognizance of the loss of Rs.1,059,767,867/- reported in the return of income filed by the Appellant for the subject AY. (b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in raising tax and interest demand of Rs.70,663,445/- for the subject AY by ignoring the losses reported in the return of income filed by the Appellant for the subject AY. had not been adjudicated. A Miscellaneous Petition came to be filed and the same came to be disposed off by an order dated 30.10.2018 in MP No.176/Chny/2018, wherein, it was held that the appeal was liable to be recalled for limited purpose of adjudicating Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal. The appeal came for hearing today in regard to Ground No.3 as extracted herein above. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the main issue in respect of the discount extended to the pre-paid distributors had already been restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication in Para No.3.10 at Page No.17 of the order of the Tribunal. It was a further submission that the issue in Ground No.3 which was in respect of incorrect computation of taxable income and consequential demand raised in the impugned order was also subject matter of the rectification application u/s.154 before the AO vide an application dated 18.11.2016, copy of which was shown at Page Nos.131-147 of the Paper Book. It was a ITA No.3317/Chny/2016 :- 3 -: submission that the said issue could also be restored to the file of the AO, in the interest of natural justice. To this submissions, the Ld.DR did not raise any serious objection.
Consequently, considering the fact that the main issues have already been restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication by the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in respect of Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal, and also as it is noticed that the issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.3 of its appeal is a subject matter of rectification application pending before the AO, the issue in Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.