PACPL BIPL JV,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T., CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL A.O. - ITO, WARD-3(3), GUWAHATI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose
ITA 18/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19
Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Pacpl Bipl Jv Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Jurisdictional A.O. – Ito, 8Th Floor, Unit Ii, Sethi Trust Ward-3(3), Guwahati. Building, G.S. Road, Vs. Bhangagarh, Guwahati, Assam- 781005. Pan: Aadap 9047 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Uttam Kumar Borthakur, Advocate Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A) For Short Hereafter] Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Not Adjudicating Upon Ground No. 1 Of Appeal Before Him By Holding It To Be General In Nature Though The Determination Of Total Income At Rs. 39846190/- Under Section 143(1), Instead Of Returned Income Of Nil & Seeking Carry Forward Of Current Business Of (-) Rs. 14640/-, Was Contrary To The Relevant Materials, Namely, The Facts & Materials Showing That The Appellant Was Not An Assessee- In- Default Within The Meaning Of First Proviso To Section 201, As Read With Second Proviso To Clause (Ia) Of Sub-Section (A) Of Section 40 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Act For Short Hereafter)
For Appellant: Shri Uttam Kumar Borthakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 40
ii. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned
CIT(A) had erred in law and in fact in sustaining the addition or disallowance of Rs.39860794 under section 40(a)(la), as the same is Contrary to the provisions of law as applicable to the facts of the case and also in violation
