ELECTRONIC & ENGINEERING CO.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1),ERSTWHILE JCIT-20(3), MUMBAI

Date of hearing : 08-12-2016 Date of order : 23 -12-2016

O R D E R Per ASHWANI TANEJA, AM: These appeals have been filed by the same assessee involving identical issues.

2 & 6011/Mum/2016 “Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (A.O) as confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], your appellant prefers an appeal against the same on following grounds, which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without granting proper opportunity of hearing. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act which is bad in law. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), contrary to the binding decision of the superior appellate authorities in the assessee's own case, erred in confirming the assessment of Business center receipts under the head "Income from House Property" and not "Income from Business" as returned by the Assessee. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment of Compensation received under the head "Income from other sources" and not "Income from Business" as returned by the assessee. 3.1 Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming non allowance of various expenses claimed as deduction in the Profit and loss account. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), erred in confirming the assessment of commission received as "Income from other sources" and not "Income from Business" as returned by the assessee. 4.1 Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the non allowance of various expenses claimed as deduction in the Profit and loss account. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming that the consideration received on transfer of tenancy rights is income chargeable to tax under the head "Income from Other Sources. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, having confirming that the consideration received on transfer of tenancy rights is income chargeable to tax under the head 3 & 6011/Mum/2016 "Income from Other Sources", the CIT(A) erred in confirming the applicability of Section 50C of the act. 8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the levy of interest u/s 2348 and 234C is consequential in nature. 9) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) is premature in nature.” During the course of hearing it was stated at the outset by the Ld.