Shri Laxmi Narain Khetan, Noida V. Addl. CIT, Noida

ITA 412/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3772 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: S KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 192

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 412(DEL)2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 LAXMI NARAIN KHETAN, ADDL. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A-41,42, SECTOR 2, NOIDA. V. NOIDA RANG E, NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S. KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K . CHAND, SR. DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M . THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 001-02, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN REOPENING THE ASS ESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE AO WHO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM AN D WORKING OF THE APPELLANT U/S 80 HHC AND ALSO IN WRONGLY TREATING T HE DEPB SALES/CREDIT AMOUNTING TO ` 54,70,005/- AS APPELLANTS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA 412(DEL)2010 2 2.2 THAT BOTH THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES FAILED TO A PPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SECOND PROVIS O TO SUB-SECTION 3 TO SECTION 80 HHC INTRODUCED BY TAXATION LAWS AMEND MENT ACT, 2005 WITH RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1998 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AS CONTE NDED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLA NT WHEREBY THE VIRES OF THE ABOVE PROVISION HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AND WHIC H MATTER IS SUB JUDICE BEFORE THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT GROUND NOS. 1& 2.2 ARE NOT PRESSED. REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. APROPOS GROUND NO. 2.1, UNDISPUTEDLY, THE JUDGME NT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, MUMBAI V. KA LPATARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS 192 TAXMAN 435(BOM) IS APPLICABLE. ACC ORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS TO BE SET ASIDE, RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE AO WILL DECIDE THE MATTE R AFRESH, KEEPING IN MIND KALPATARU(SUPRA). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED, AS INDICATED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.06.2010. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.06..2010 *RM ITA 412(DEL)2010 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.LAXMI NARAIN KHETAN, A-41,42, SECTOR 2, NOIDA. 2. ACIT, NOIDA RANGE, NOIDA. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR