ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. ASHIRBAD REAL ESTATE & TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., ASANSOL
In the result, the cross objection of the assessee in CO 1/2012 is dismissed and revenue appeal in ITA No
ITA 1591/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2008-09
Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 (Appellant ) (Respondent) A.C.I.T., Circle-1, -Versus- Ashirbad Real Estate & Asansol Transport Pvt.Ltd. Burdwan (Pan:Aaeca 8075 C) C.O.No.1/Kol/2012 A/O Ita No.1591/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ashirbad Real Estate & -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Transport Pvt.Ltd., Burdwan Asansol (Pan Aaeca 8075 C) (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Cit (Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In Appeal No142/Cit(A)/Asl/Range-1/Asl/10-11 Dated 27.09.2011 For The Asst Year 2008-09 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).
For Appellant: Shri S.S.Alam, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Aravind Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 40
271C. and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) isn't attracted to the same.
Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when there was no loss to revenue. The Agra Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal-vs.- ACIT
[2014] 45 axmann.com 555 (Agra - Trib.) had held that the second proviso to Section