2020 (10) TMI 1010

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The assessee has raised five identical grounds in its both appeals for the AYs 2006-07 and 2008-09 and they are extracted herein below for reference:- 1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that there is any mistake in the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 which can be rectified U/s. 154 of the IT Act. 3. The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,01,397/- (for AY 2006-07) and Rs. 45,27,416/- (for AY 2008-09) made by the AO while passing the order U/s. 154 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the deduction U/s. 80P is allowable and is correctly allowed while passing the order U/s. 143(3) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Act will be attracted for non-filing the return of income. (iii) Section 80A(5) provides that "where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction U/s. 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or Under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C-deduction in respect of certain income", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before us for both the AYs raising five identical grounds. However, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) had erroneously confirmed the order of the ld. AO who had unduly withdrawn the deduction claimed by the assessee U/s. 80P of the Act invoking his powers U....