1.  ITO Vs. Audyogik Tantra Shikshan, ITA No. 106/PN/2010, Date of Order : 30/06/2011, Asstt. Year : 2004-05, ITAT – Pune

The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was deleted by the CIT(A). The AO filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a CO in which it was inter alia argued that in the assessment order which had been supplied to the assessee, there was no direction for initiating penalty though in the assessment order filed by the department with the memo of the appeal, there was a reference to the issue of notice u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee demanded costs u/s 254(2B). HELD by the Tribunal upholding the assessee’s plea:

A.O should have confined himself in making just and proper assessment only, as per the provisions of the law and harassment of the assessee which is not permitted under the Statute should have been avoided at all cost.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  M/s PYRAMID INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITA No. 793/Hyd/2010, Dated: 18/02/2011, Assessment Year: 2005-2006, ITAT – Hyderabad

The issues taken up by the CIT for revision of assessment u/s 263, namely, work-in-progress & closing stock, opening stock, and disallowance of expenditure on account of various heads, have already been considered by the AO in the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). Therefore, the CIT is not justified in making these issues as a subject matter of revision. The assessee has furnished all the details in respect of the expenditure claimed by the assessee against various over heads and the AO after considering the same and after considering the explanations with regard to the issues in dispute, allowed the claim of the assessee. The CIT has wrongly directed the AO to reconsider the disallowances made by the AO. The CIT was only substituting his views as to how the assessment should have been done in place of the assessment has already made by the AO. There is no error point out in the revision order, which is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The reasoning of the CIT is on incorrect appreciation of the accounts and statement, therefore, the order of the CIT is not correct either on the matter of jurisdiction or on merits.

(Please click here for judgment) 
 

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"

  
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal
Founder - Voice of CA 
Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com      
   
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com 
  
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA 
mukbansal80@gmail.com