AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal has been filed u/s 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'', against the order dated 8th August, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Camp at Meerut in ITAT No. 5634 (Del)/2004 for the assessment year 1996-97. In the memo of appeal the following questions of law have been proposed:
1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the CIT(A) has annulled the Assessment Order on the basis of same observations made by it in his order when in fact the CIT(A) had dealt with the issues raised by the Department on merits?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deciding the appeal without going into the merits and the grounds of appeal raised by the Department?
(3) Whether the defect of non supply of reasons for reopening the assessee can be cured if the same are supplied and commented upon in appellate proceedings before the CIT(A)?
Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, Learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent, The present appeal arises out of the reassessment proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the Act. Against the reassessment order, the matter was carried in appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the appeal on the ground that the reasons to believe were not supplied to the assessee with the result the assessee could not file its objections. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the Department before the Tribunal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the finding recorded by the CIT(A) that the reasons were not supplied to the assessee-respondent, we do not find any fault in the impugned order. The appeal is concluded by the finding of facts and is dismissed accordingly. Besides above, we find that the authorities below had examined the merits of the case also and held that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act was not called for as the depositors were known being registered companies.