No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI JOGINDER SINGH
PER G.S. PANNU, AM :
The captioned are two appeals preferred by the assessee against two orders of CIT(A) dated 17.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, which in turn arose from respective demand notices/orders dated 21.2.2011 and 1.7.2011 passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) respectively by the Assessing Officer treating the assessee in default and liable for interest u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for Rs. 44,11,460/- and Rs. 42,97,687/- respectively.
2 M/s. L‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. & 2257/Mum/2014
At the time of hearing, the singular plea of the assessee was that though the CIT(A) accepted the pleas of the assessee, relief has not been allowed straightaway and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
In response, the learned CIT-DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue put forth a report from the Assessing Officer enclosing order giving effect to the respective orders of the CIT(A), whereby the demands raised have been reduced to NIL. In this context, the learned CIT-DR has furnished copies of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer dated 4.2.2016, which are placed on record.
In view of the aforesaid, the learned representative for the assessee fairly conceded that no grievance of the assessee survives for the present. As a consequence, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous, as the necessary relief has been allowed by the Assessing Officer vide his orders dated 4.2.2016 giving effect to the orders of the CIT(A).
Above decision was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of the hearing in the presence of both the parties on 11.02.2016.