TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a public sector Govt of India undertaking under the Ministry of Railways and is wholly owned by Indian Railways. It is engaged in the business of providing telecommunication services in respect of leasing of bandwidth, tower space and others. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 14.09.2011 declaring income of Rs. 1,61,62,469/- under the normal provision of tax and book profit of Rs. 1,16,01,41,441/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. Since the tax on book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act was more than normal, income tax was paid accordingly. The return of income was initially processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Assessee thereafter filed revised return of income on 28.03.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing the impugned order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and keeping the principles of natural justice at bay. 4. On the-facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The notice u/s. 148 issued in this case is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and accordingly the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice is liable to be quashed. 5. That the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax erred in not passing a speaking order on the objections raised by the appellant to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without considering the Return file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has also filed the CO. wherein the grounds raised are as under:- "1. THAT the addition made by the A.O. to the book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act was erroneous and liable to be struck down as was aptly granted by the Ld. CIT(A). "2. Any other ground that may be urged during the hearing." 5. Before us, at the outset Ld. A.R submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee are supportive of the order of CIT(A) and if the grounds of Revenue are dismissed then the C.O. of the assessee would be rendered academic. The aforesaid contention of the Ld. A.R has not been controverted by Ld. D.R. 6. Before us at the outset Ld.DR submitted that though Revenue has raised various grounds but all the grounds are interconnected. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2012-13, Revenue had preferred appeal before the coordinate bench of Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 28.11.2018 in ITA no. 2743/Del/2016 had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. He pointed to the copy of the order placed in the paper book. He therefore submitted that since the facts of case in the year under consideration are identical to that of 2012- 13, the grounds of Revenue deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the addition of Rs. 8,13,00,000/- on account of provision for additional liability relating to prior period u/s. 115JB of the Act. We find that Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assesse....