M/S. SILICON INDIA PVT.LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,, CHENNAI
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 597/CHNY/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2020AY 2004-05
Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.597/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Silicon India Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jhaver Centre, No.72, Marshalls Corporate Circle – 6(2), Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aaecs1513K] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Dated 30.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1.1 The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous, Arbitrary & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 1.2 The Cit(Appeals) Also Went Wrong In Passing The Impugned Order In A Casual Manner Without Applying His Mind Neither To The Facts Of The Case Nor To The Submissions Made Before Him. 2.1 The Cit(Appeals) Having Noticed That The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Merely Accept The Returned Income Ignoring The Relief Granted By The Cit(Appeals) In His Order Dated 19.12.2011 & By The Hon’Ble Tribunal In Its Order Dated 04.04.2013, Went Wrong In Proceeding To Confirm The Order Impugned Before Him.
For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 244A
section 234B as directed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in its order dated 04.04.2013. 3.2
The CIT(Appeals) ought to have directed the AO to give credit for the sum of ₹.9,41,566/- when the challan was also produced before him instead of directing the AO to verify.
3.3
The CIT(Appeals) ought to have directed
