9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment under section 143(1) for two years, liability for luxury tax, additions under various heads, validity of reassessment proceedings, jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, consistency with original assessment under section 143(1). Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT NAGPUR involved two appeals concerning the same assessee with similar points, hence disposed of together. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had created a liability for luxury tax but did not pay the same, leading to a dispute under section 43B of the Act. Additionally, expenses under various heads were not properly vouched, resulting in further additions to the total income for both years. The CIT(A) referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing that additions should only be made if it can be proven that they had escaped assessment during the original assessment under section 143(1). In the subsequent analysis, it was highlighted that no exemption can be claimed during reassessment if not claimed during the original assessment, citing CWT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. The judgment also referred to the provisions of section 147 being for the benefit of revenue and not the assessee, as per Kewaldas Ranchhoddas v. CIT. The judgment further discussed the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147, emphasizing that once initiated, the entire assessment starts afresh, as held in various court decisions. The Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction is limited to the escaped assessment, and reassessment should not revise matters not subject to proceedings under section 147. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, as it was not proven that the amounts had escaped assessment earlier. The judgment concluded by dismissing the appeals filed by the Department, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.
|
