TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 2006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 29.12.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that there was no failure on part of the assessee in claiming wrongful claim of set off of business loss of ineligible business unit fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from the ineligible business unit need to be allowed to be carried forward when there was a change in the shareholding pattern during the P.Y. which entails lapse f brought forward business loss of Rs. 2,84,33,803/- which was also mentioned in the tax audit report filed." 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the reopening has been held to be bad, it was incumbent upon the revenue to challenge the same. Hence, he submitted that since the Revenue has not challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in which the ld.CIT(A) has held that the reopening is not valid, the other grounds raised on merits are only of academic interest. 3. Upon careful consideration, we note that the issue of jurisdiction and its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l based on which the assessment order was passed. Therefore, clearly, the alleged escapement income cannot be attributed to failure on the part of the appellant to furnish any details. Therefore, I agree with the appellant's contention that the reopening was done in violation of the prohibition stipulated in the first proviso to sec. 147 of the Act since in this case the assessment was reopened af....