2021 (2) TMI 1080

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2009 declaring income at Rs. 9,86,532/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2011 and certain additions were made. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and thereafter, before the ITAT. After the order of the appellate authorities, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 9,87,219/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act and consequently, assessment was framed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 21.12.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs. 13,23,140/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal Income of the assessee. 6. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify any of the Statement of fact and grounds of the appeal at the time of hearing or otherwise." 4. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any adjournment application was filed though the notice of hearing was sent to Assessee. The file further reveals that the notice of the hearing that was sent to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36, was returned undelivered by the Postal Auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the materials on record. On perusing the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, we find that assessee submitted before AO that the interest paid by the assessee to Indiabulls and Reliance has been included by them in their respective incomes and therefore no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is called for. The aforesaid contention of the assessee has not been controverted by the authorities. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. reported in (2015) 272 ITR 635 has held that the second proviso to Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature and should be given retrospective effect from 1st April 2005. It has further held that as long a....