9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) and Assessing Officer erred in law and fact by making the adjustment under section 143(1)(a) where the notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) has been issued. Hence the addition made under section 143(1)(a) is illegal, uncalled for arbitrary where the notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2) has been issued. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was no legal warrant to make addition of Rs. 4,29,267 more particularly when the assessment was made as a scrutiny assessment with the issue of notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2). 3. That the impugned addition of Rs. 4,29,267 being illegal void and without jurisdiction deserves to be deleted. 4. That the tax liability aggregating Rs. 44,228 being illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 140 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Modern Fibotex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1995] 212 ITR 496. Apart from that, it was also contended that the addition of Rs. 4,29,267 has already been made in the past assessment year i.e., 1993-94 and thus, there was no reason to make the same addition in the year under consideration. 6. Considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) observed that the Delhi High Court in the case of Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248 at page 252 and also Rakesh Aggarwal v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 496 concluded that the view taken by the Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court being different, he was inclined to go by the decision of the Delhi High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived. As such, it is seen that the principle laid down therein was not correctly appreciated by the first appellate authority. 9. Similarly, in the case of Rakesh Aggarwal. Their Lordships, relying upon the case of Apogee International Ltd. have held that the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even after issue of notice under section 143(2) does not oust the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice under section 143(2), where he considers it to be necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has declared his income correctly. Thus, it is seen that the principle enunciated in the above decision also does not help the case of the Revenue. On the other hand, the decisions relied upon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
