Director Income Tax (International Taxation v. M/S Alfa Crew As

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 56 of 2010 Director Income Tax (International Taxation) ………….. Appellant Versus M/s Alfa Crew AS, C/O S.R. Batliboi & Co. 2[nd] Floor, The Capital Court, LSC, Phase-III, O/o Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi. …………… Respondent Present: Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) (Delay Condonation Application No. 6940 of 2010) Personal service has been effected upon the respondent on 29[th] June, 2012. Despite that, no one is appearing on behalf of the respondent to contest the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, allow the application. (Income Tax Appeal No. 56 of 2010) In this appeal, it is being contended that whether ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue of Section 10(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act while the same should have been referred back to the Assessing Officer. The fact remains that the said issue was decided by the CIT(A) against the revenue. The revenue did not prefer an appeal against the said decision of CIT(A) before the Tribunal. While deciding the said issue against the revenue, many other issues were decided by CIT(A) against the assessee. Assessee went before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has directed those issues to be gone in de novo from the assessment stage. Hence the present appeal. 2. The decision of the CIT(A) on the subject issue having reached finality and the same having not been questioned by the assessee before the Tribunal and, at the same time, the revenue having also not avenged any grievance against the said issue by preferring an independent appeal, question of the Tribunal referring back the said issue de novo to the Assessing Officer did never arise. There is, therefore, nothing in the appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. P. Singh (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 04.08.2012