- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS income tax appeal was admitted on 12 th May, 2010 on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of CIT (Appeal) dated 21.9.2007 by holding that order passed by the Assessing Officer could not be construed as an order to have been passed under Section 154 of the Act when even according to Assessing Officer the order in question was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 154 and 250 while computing the tax effect in respect of the assessment year in question? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeal in relation to the assessment year in question without any justifiable reasons and by taking contrary view taken on the same issue in respect of the two assessment years in the appeals of appellant?" Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee claimed certain expenses in the return for the Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 on account of capital expenditure, excess provision/liability written back, Mine Development Expenses, contribution to Group Gratuity Fund, bad debt written off, etc. as mentioned in the assessment order dated 16th May, 2007. The said claims were rejected by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal. The appellate Authority allowed all the claims of the assessee. Thereafter, Assessing Officer passed a fresh order whereby he allowed all the expenses claimed by assessee as per direction of the Appellate Authority. However, instead of reducing the income of the assessee, Assessing Officer restricted the income of the assessee to the returned income vide order dated 16th May, 2007, in respect of Assessment Year 2003-
(3.) 4. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 16th May, 2007, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal), Udaipur, vide order dated 21st September, 2007. Thereafter, the revenue preferred appeal before Income Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue vide order dated 21st March, 2009, hence, assessee/appellant has preferred this appeal.;