IN THE ITAT DELHI

SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. & ANUBHAV SHARMA, J.M.

Rathi Ceramics (P) Ltd. v. ITO

ITA No. 6136/Del/2016

8 May, 2023

Appellant by: Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, CA

Respondent by: Princy Singla, Sr.DR

Anubhav Sharma , J.M.

The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order dated 25-10-2016 of Commissioner (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Learned First Appellate Authority or in short Learned FAA) arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 4-2-2014 passed Unswe Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) by the ITO, Ward-15(3), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Learned Assessing Officer).

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. The assessee has come in appeal raising following grounds :-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT (A)) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148, is bad and liable to be quashed as the condition and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned Assessing Officer are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts.