9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1367 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153C - Addition u/s 68 - reopening of assessment u/s 147 already initiated - HELD THAT - This issue has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of the assessee by holding that on the basis of incriminating material found, once reassessment proceedings was initiated on the basis of incriminating material found in the search of 3rd party then the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act were applicable which exclude the application of section 147 and 148 and notice u/s. 148 of the Act and proceeding u/s. 147 are illegal and void ab initio. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal 2017 (8) TMI 482 - ITAT DELHI , the reassessment in question is accordingly quashed. Since I have already quashed the reassessment, there is no need to adjudicate the other grounds. Ld. DR has not brought to my notice any contrary decision on exactly similar facts and circumstances of the case mentioned in para no. 8 of the Tribunal order dated 08.08.2017, as reproduced above. Therefore, there is no help can be given to the revenue on the issues mentioned in the written submissions by the Ld. DR. Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of AO under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Application of section 153C over section 147. 3. Addition of share application money under section 68. 4. Addition made under section 69C. 5. Legal and merit-based grounds of appeal by the assessee. Jurisdiction of AO under section 147: The appeal challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on alleged incriminating documents found in the search of a third party. The appellant contended that the AO should have applied section 153C instead of section 147, as the former provisions are non-obstantive and exclude the operations of section 147. The Tribunal referred to past decisions, including one where it was held that if reassessment is based on incriminating material from a third party search, section 153C is applicable, rendering the notice under section 148 and proceedings under section 147 void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed, and the appeal allowed. Application of section 153C over section 147: The appellant argued that section 153C should have been applied instead of section 147 by the revenue. The Tribunal upheld this argument, citing past decisions where it was established that if reassessment is initiated based on incriminating material from a third party search, section 153C prevails, rendering section 147 inapplicable. The reassessment was deemed void ab initio, leading to the quashing of the reassessment and allowing the appeal. Addition of share application money under section 68: The appellant contested the addition of share application money under section 68, stating that necessary details were provided to the AO before filing the Return of Income (ROI) for the relevant year. It was argued that the AO did not issue summons to the share subscribers who had filed confirmations, and no incriminating evidence was found in the search of the third party to link the money to the appellant. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting that the AO did not follow the required procedure, and the addition was made without sufficient evidence, leading to the allowance of the appeal. Addition made under section 69C: The appellant challenged the addition made under section 69C, arguing that no evidence was unearthed during the search of the third party to support this addition. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of corroborative evidence and sustained the appellant's argument, resulting in the quashing of the addition and allowing the appeal. Legal and merit-based grounds of appeal: The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal, including legal and merit-based issues. The Tribunal thoroughly examined the arguments presented by both parties, reviewed past decisions, and considered the facts of the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on various grounds, quashing the reassessment and allowing the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the appeal comprehensively, highlighting the key arguments, legal principles, and decisions that influenced the Tribunal's final decision in favor of the appellant.
|
