BACKBONE TARMET NG JV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD
The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms
ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06
Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2
For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40
194A on such interest expenses. The AO accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the expenses.
11. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Lankmark Township (P.)
Ltd. Vs. CIT 279 CTR 384 (Delhi) which hold that
