SHIVANI ISPAT AND ROLLING MILL (P) LTD.,BYRNIHAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 227/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.227/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shivani Ispatand Rolling Mill Vs. Acit, Circle-Shillong (P) Ltd. 13Th Mile, Tamulkuchi, Byrnihat, G.S. Road, Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcs 3465 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri J.P. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri T. Hunar, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- Shillong, In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Shg/10083/2018-19 Dated 17.04.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) / 92C(4) / 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 30/11/2018. 2.When This Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Order Dated 10.06.2020, Passed By The Tribunal In The Case Of M/S Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. & Srinath Ji Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. In I.T.A. No. 895& 1035/Kol/2019, For Assessment Year 2014-15.Wherein Thetribunal Held That Effect Of Omission Of Clause (I) Of Section 92Ba W.E.F 01.04.2017 Had The Effect Of It Being Omitted From Its Inception Hence, Reference
For Appellant: Shri J.P. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Hunar, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 92B
21 of the judgment the Full Bench has noted the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand
Thapar [AIR 1961 SC 838] and has relied upon the principles laid down therein. The Full Bench overlooked the position that that was a case under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act which
