Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACM, VIMAL KUMAR, J
Income Tax Officer – Appellant
Versus
Super Plastronics Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cit(a) allowed revenue's appeal based on procedural validity. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussion on the absence of representation by the assessee. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. identified flaws in the assessing officer's inquiry process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. decision to restore appeals for statistical purposes due to procedural issues. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
1. The Revenue has filed appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 30.04.2024 & 09.05.2024 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively in the quantum addition and the Revenue has also filed appeals against the order of ld. CIT (A) dated 30.04.2024 & 09.05.2024 for AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively rejecting the penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. First we take up the Revenue’s appeal in Assessment Year 2015-16 in quantum addition.
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and it
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
