Ita/278/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Jaypee Ventures Pvt Ltd

o/o L2.O7.2011 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal,Sr. Standing Counsel for theRevenue/Appellant.Mr. Ajay Vohra with Mr.Somnath Shukla, Advocates forthe assessee/Respondent. + ITA No.278l2O11* The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section I47 readwith Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct') and initiated the reassessment proceeding. Thereafter, certainadditions were made. The assessee challenged that order by filing appeal before the CIT(A) questioning the validity of notice under Section 148 of theAct and also the additions on merits. The CIT (A) upheld the validityof notice under Section 148 of the Act and deleted the additions. The assessee filed appeal thereagainst. The assessee alsofiled cross-objections challenging that part of the order of the CIT (A)filed cross-objections challenging that part of the order of the CIT (A)whereby the CIT (A) had upheld the validity of notice under Section148 of the Act. The Tribunal vide impugned order has also allowed thecross-objections of the assessee holding that the notice under Section148 of the Act was not proper and illegal. For this reason, the Tribunaldid not go into the merits of the additions made by the AO, which weredeleted by the CIT (A)cross-objections of the assessee holding that the notice under Section148 of the Act was not proper and illegal. For this reason, the Tribunaldid not go into the merits of the additions made by the AO, which weredeleted by the CIT (A) t. The Revenue has filed two appeals, viz., ITA No.277 of 20II and the instant appeal against the said order. In ITA Signature Not Verified t } ,{ No.277/2011, the order of the Tribunal [quashing]the notice underSection 148 of the Act is challenged, which appealhas been admittedby this Court in today's date. In the present appeal, the additionsmade by the AO,which were deleted by the CIT (A) are challenged.Since the Tribunaldid not discuss the [question ]on merits, thisappeal is clearlyincompetent and is not maintainable. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.M.L. MEHTA, J. JULY Lzt zOLtpmc