TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that no income from attached assets can be assessed in the hands of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not granting relief of liability amounting to Rs.2,25,309/- on account of interest expense claimed by the appellant. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the calculation of book profit U/s. 115JB amounting to Rs.1,37,983/-. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the outcome of this issue would be consequential to the decision taken by the learned CIT(A) in respect of ground No. 4 and therefore this also deserves to be set aside. 7. Having regard to the statement of both the parties I set aside this issue also to the file of the CIT(A) to reconsider the matter accordingly. 8. Ground No. 6 is with regard to charging of interest which has to be recomputed consequent to the final income and taxability computed after giving effect to the order of the ITAT and therefore I set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh computation. 9. At this juncture the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is an additional ground with regard to the correctness of taxability of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d entities and filed civil petition in the Supreme Court, which is pending. In view of the findings of the Special Court, which is the ruling judgement as on date, its assets can be used to meet the liability of Late Harshd Mehta. Thus the assessee can't be said to be a separate entity. Since it is a pure legal issue it deserves to be admitted in the light of the following decisions: - i. National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) iii. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) 11. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that an identical issue has come up before the ITAT "H" Bench, Mumhai in the Case of Shri Hitesh S. Meh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the instant case the issue was never foreseen by anyone. Even today there is no decision by any authority to treat the assets belonging to the so called group as the assets of Shri Harshad S. Mehta. The additional ground is thus raised on a non-issue which is not raised even as on today. Therefore it cannot be said that the facts are already on record of the AO or CIT(A). He has also relied on the following decisions in support of his contention that where the claim before the Tribunal is not supported by material/does not emerge from facts on record in the assessment proceedings the said ground cannot be admitted at a latter stage: i. CIT vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. 12 DTR 25 (Delhi) ii. Avon Cycle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 292 IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be raised earlier for good reasons. He mainly emphasised the fact that the Commissioner, Central Circle-II being a party to the proceedings before the Special Court, the Revenue is aware of the proceedings and hence the facts are deemed to be on the record of the AO as well as the CIT(A). He also narrated the events that occurred before the Special Court. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that even after the direction of the Special Court the assessee company chose to file an appeal in its name and did not raise the contention that no company was existing. It also deserves to be noticed that vide ground No. 3 in the original grounds of appeal, as in the case of Harshad Esta....