2012 (11) TMI 1315 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act.
2. Service of reasons for notice u/s 148 within six years.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- due to non-confirmation of credit entry.
4. Deletion of balance credit entry of Rs. 4,00,650/-.
5. General request to set aside the CIT(A) order and restore the AO's order.

Summary:

1. Validity of the reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act:
The CIT(A) annulled the reassessment order because the AO failed to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee, which was a fatal error as per the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s approach was not in accordance with law and remitted the matter back to the AO to dispose of the preliminary objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment.

2. Service of reasons for notice u/s 148 within six years:
The CIT(A) held that the reasons for the notice were served beyond the six-year period, which invalidated the notice. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that the AO should follow the correct procedure as per the Supreme Court's guidelines.

3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- due to non-confirmation of credit entry:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that the amounts were received from Yadav & Company, a share broker, and were part of the receivables as of 31.03.2001. The Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue separately due to the remand of the case to the AO.

4. Deletion of balance credit entry of Rs. 4,00,650/-:
The CIT(A) found no merit in the addition of Rs. 4,00,650/- as there was no evidence of receipt from Kuldeep Textiles (P) Ltd. The Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue separately due to the remand of the case to the AO.

5. General request to set aside the CIT(A) order and restore the AO's order:
The Tribunal vacated the findings of the CIT(A) and set aside the reassessment order, remitting the matter to the AO to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to dispose of the preliminary objections by passing a speaking order and then proceed with the reassessment in accordance with law. The other grounds raised in the appeal were treated as infructuous.