TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Brief facts of the case are that on 25.03.2014 the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') against the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred an appeal against the aforementioned assessment order before the Court of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) Bhopal which was partly allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue as well as the respondent both filed appeals before the ITAT which were heard analogously and disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2022 in the following manner : "8. However, it appears that page 137 of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) speaks of quashing of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clining to decide the appeal merely on technicalities? 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT being the final fact finding authority, erred in not going into the legal question on its own to dispose the appeal with substantial justice, more so when it is trite that a legal ground can be raised at any stage in view of SC decision in case of NTPC vs CIT (1998)229 ITR 383 SC and that the revenue was not represented on the date of hearing before the ITAT? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while adjudicating the appeal, the learned ITAT erred in passing the impugned order and failed to consider the fact that there was sufficient compliance of Section 153C of the Act of 1961. When t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n perusal of the record it reveals that present appeal involves substantial question of law which is framed herein : 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not deciding the appeal on merits, on ground that the validity of assessment order quashed by CIT(A) for reasons that there was no satisfaction of AO of searched person was not specifically challenged by Revenue, without appreciating that in view of decision of SC in Super Malls Vs PCIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 105 (SC)/[2020] 273 Taxman 556 (SC) the question of recording of separate satisfaction when AO of searched person and other person was the same was already settled in favour of revenue and hence the ITAT was bound to dec....