TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n deleting the Section 14A disallowance of Rs. 1,47,487/-. (4) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The assessee has raised following grounds in the Cross Objection:- "1. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not judicially deciding specific ground raised on the notices issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, having not been issued within the prescribed time as per proviso to section 143(2) of the Act, hence they are barred by limitation and the assumption of jurisdiction is invalid. 2. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not judicially deciding specific ground raised before him that "all the conditions stipulated to assume a valid jurisdiction are not complied with in absence of reasons recorded, hence the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is illegal, invalid and void ab initio and subsequent assessment order is also bad in law", by relying on unsupported/non-existing facts and thereby further erred in di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....third parties i.e. other than RIPL & VCPL or even RIPL & VCPL as the same have been allowed by Hon'ble ITAT in appreciation of facts. No evidence or material is brought on record by the A.O. to hold it otherwise, the addition was made on the basis of statements of said persons and no efforts were made by the A.O.to dismiss the veracity of the contents of affidavits filed by the the present directors. The payments for the purchases of computers have been made by account payee cheques. No evidence is brought on record that the computers were physically not available for the year under consideration. Finally, all other evidences produced before A.O. and available on record goes to establish beyond doubt that the appellant had purchased computers and is eligible for the claim of depreciation on it. 15. Considering the totality of the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case and respectfully following the orders of the Hon. Tribunal dated 19.04.2016 (Supra), the issue is fully covered by virtue of Hon. Tribunal's orders, as well as appellate orders for A.Y. 1997-98 & 1998-99 (supra). Therefore, I am of the considered view that the appellant had purchased computer ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest on loan taken with respect to aforesaid assets. We, further observe that ITAT vide order dated 19-04-2016 has also decided the issue with respect to the aforesaid two grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee for AY 2000-01. Further, it is seen that the assessment order for the impugned AY 2002-03 is based primarily on the observations made by the AO for assessment year 2000-01, which has been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that CIT(A) has not erred in facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee with respect to the aforesaid two issues. Further, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the ITAT ruling for ready reference. In respect of depreciation, the ITAT made the following observations: "24. For verifying the genuineness of the purchases, statement of Rahul Parikh & Vandna Parikh were recorded by A.O. In the respective statement, both the persons denied of such transaction with the assessee company. Based on these statement, the claim of depreciation was disallowed. As mentioned elsewhere, the ITAT restored the issue to the files of the A.O. for fresh adjudication. During th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordingly set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. allow the claim of depreciation. This ground is accordingly allowed." In respect of interest, the ITAT made the following observations:- "Para-28., during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was explained that the interest was paid on term loans taken from Cooperative Bank of Ahmedabad loan as working capital loan. The loan taken were used for the business purpose of the company. It was explained that out of total loan of Rs.5 crores, interest on term loan is paid to Bank and rest of interest pertained others on working capitals. In the first round of litigation, the A.O. did not accept the contention of the assessee because the purchase of computers have been held to be bogus. In the set aside proceeding, the A.O. simply borrowed the findings of his own predecessor given in the first round of litigation. We have carefully gone through the contents of the facts in issues, there is no dispute that the disallowance is based upon the findings given in the first round of litigation. Since we have held the purchase of computers to be genuine as per our detailed decision / discussion qua first grievan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....coupled with the explanatory notes in the Fin. Bill, 2016 & the department's understanding as reflected by circular dated 28.12.2016, the Apex Court was of the opinion that Rule 8D was intended to operate prospectively. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts including Supreme Court (supra) the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for the year under consideration is not justified. The same is deleted. In the result the ground raised by the appellant is allowed." 14. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief granted by the ld. CIT(A). The contention of the ld. DR is that even if Rule 8D does not strictly apply to the impugned under consideration, even then reasonable amount should have been disallowed by the ld. CIT(A) looking into the instant facts. In response, the counsel for the assessee relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that in case of CIT vs. Godrej & Boyce 43 DTR 12 (Bombay), on which the assessee has placed reliance upon, the Bombay High Court has held that even prior to the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been mentioned. Further, the ld. DR pointed out that even if notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act is time barred, even then the order passed u/s. 148 is not time barred and the same is not liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The primary contention of the counsel for the assessee is that the assessment order has been passed for the impugned assessment year u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the order is barred by limitation since the first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the due prescribed date. Further, the counsel for the assessee submitted that from the contents of the assessment order, nowhere it can be inferred that such order was passed u/s. 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order is liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction itself. Without prejudice, the counsel for the assessee submitted even otherwise no "reasons for reopening" have been supplied to the assessee despite a specific request and therefore, in view of the decision of GKN Driveshaft (SC), the order passed is liable to be set aside. However, we observe that in the Form no. 35 filed by the asses....