9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 542 – SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that CBDT circular should not be applied ipso facto particularly when the matter has cascading effect. Cases in which common principle may be involved in subsequent large number of matters cannot be dismissed by applying the circular ipso facto. In view of his observation of the Apex Court, tax effect of all the appeals put together should be considered while applying the circular. In the circumstances, total tax effect of all the appeals put together in all the cases is more than Rs.3 lakhs and therefore we do not accept the contention of the learned A.R – Decided in favor of Revenue. - ITA.No.1161 to 1164/Hyd/2012, C. O. No. 149 to 152/Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri R. Lakshman (D.R.) For the Respondent : Smt. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (A.R) ORDER Per Shri Chandra Poojari, A.M. The Revenue filed appeals for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007- 08 against the Order of the CIT(A), Guntur dated 15.02.2012 and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 2004-05 is without authority of law and as such invalid. Hence, I am inclined to agree with the A.R. and quash the action of the A.O. in assuming jurisdiction for reassessment and accordingly, the consequential addition made by the A.O. stands deleted". 3.1. Learned A.R. submitted that the grounds raised by the Revenue is totally misconceived and admittedly, before issuance of notice under section 148 there was no prior approval of the JCIT taken by the Assessing Officer. Being so, the Orders of the CIT(A) in observing that assuming jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2004-2005 without authority of law is correct and as such, the proceedings initiated to be quashed. Accordingly, the mistake committed by the Assessing Officer cannot be rectified under section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this view of the matter, considering the submissions of the D.R. as well as the A.R. we are inclined to uphold the Order of the CIT(A) for this assessment year and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, Revenue's Appeal ITA.No.1161/Hyd/2012 is dismissed. 5. C.O.No.149/Hyd/2012 - A.Y. 2004-05 : The CO of the assessee reads a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cross objection of the assessee has become infructuous. Accordingly, C.O.No.149/Hyd/2012 of the assessee is dismissed. 9. ITA.No.1162/Hyd/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) : The grounds of Revenue reads as follows : 1. "The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous on both law and facts. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not communicating the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee to the A.O. in violation of I.T. Rule 46A. 3. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the enhanced interest and remuneration to partners on income reflected in the impounded material, which are not commensurate with section 40(b) of the I.T. Act. 4. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the enhanced interest and remuneration to the partners, even though the partners had not disclosed the same in their individual returns. 5. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal basing on various decisions, which are not relevant to the instant case and the facts are different". 10. Since, learned D.R. vehemently objected to the Order of the CIT(A) in not forwarding the additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee to the Assessing Officer. In the opinion, this is in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and hence, we remit the issue to the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was within 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 has to be upheld. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2005- 2006 and the same is confirmed. Ground No.1 in the cross-objection is rejected. 15. Hence, we sustain the Order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is justified. This ground of C.O. is dismissed. 16. With respect to other grounds raised by the cross-objector, the CIT(A) has observed that the collections admitted by the assessee in the statements enclosed to the return are in agreement with the records filed by the assessee with Entertainment Tax Officer, Tirupati. This aspect has not been examined by Assessing Officer while placing reliance on impounded statements which has formed the basis of assessment. 17. Since the CIT(A) has pointed out that the collection admitted by the assessee in the statements enclosed to the return are in agreement with the records filed by the assessee with Entertainment Officer at Tirupati which has not been examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
