TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.136/Bang/2018 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal and hereby confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order passed by learned assessing officer being bad in law and void-ab-inito was required to be quashed instead of being confirmed. . 2. In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have quashed the order, as the order passed by Assessing Officer was without properly assuming the jurisdiction and without properly complying with the law. The Assessment Order being bad in law and is to be quashed. 3. In any c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have quashed the order, as the order passed by Assessing Officer was without properly assuming the jurisdiction and without properly complying with the law. The Assessment Order being in bad in law and is to be quashed. 3. In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer had not properly assumed the proper jurisdiction u/s. 153C of I.T. Act, 1961. In the absence of the assumption of proper jurisdiction proper satisfaction note, the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer being bad in law and void-ab-inito required to be quashed. 4. In any case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding. It was her submission that under these facts, the issue on merit should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a decision simultaneously with the decision in the first appeal of the assessee for these four years i.e., Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14. 4. She also submitted that there is one technical issue involved in both these years which is raised by the assessee as per ground No.3 before the Tribunal in both years and this issue is regarding assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein called 'the Act'). Regarding this issue, she submitted that paras 12 to 14 of the order of learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15 are relevant and in Assessment Year 2015-16, the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r duly recording his reasons and after recording his satisfaction. forwarded seized materials to the Assessing Officer of the appellant M/s Akarsh Residence Pvt ltd. The Assessing Officer thereafter proceeded and recorded his satisfaction and issued notice u/s 153C dated 19/09/2017. 13. It is noted that appellant filed return on 28/09/2017 in response to notice issued u/s 153C. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 10/10/2017 and notice u/s 142(1) along with a questionnaire dated 02/11/2017. 14. In view of the above facts, the contention of the appellant that there was lack of jurisdiction, that legal requirements were not complied with and that principles of law were not applied is found to be frivol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is available on pages 70 to 89 of the Paper Book and as per the same, the assessee has claimed loss of Rs. 3,79,94,328/- but he AO made addition of Rs. 2,48,41,884/- and hence, it is seen that the quantum of loss for the present year is dependent upon the decision of CIT(A) in the first appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 in which the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 2,48,41,884/- made by the AO under section 14A of the Act. Similarly, the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2011-12 is available on pages 91 to 109 of the Paper Book and as per the same, the assessee claimed loss of Rs. 18,60,44,134/- in this year but the AO made addition of Rs. 16,87,03,704/- under section 14A of the Act and determined the net loss for that year a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of losses for the present year is also depending upon the decision of CIT(A) in the first appeal for this year and earlier three years which are still pending before CIT(A). 9. Regarding the issue in respect of not allowing MAT credit under section 115JAA, it is seen that since in Assessment Year 2014-15, tax on book profit was determined by the AO at Rs. 9,37,94,385/- but regular tax under normal provision was determined by the AO at Rs. 15,93,20,359/- and therefore, this is decision of both lower authorities that no MAT credit is available but since the assessee has claimed brought forward losses of Rs. 35,56,72,323/- in Assessment Year 2014-15 which is held to be Nil by the AO as per the Assessment Order, the amount of MAT credit ava....