9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 on 1.11.2005, admitting NIL income. Assessment was originally completed on 28.12.2007 by the DDIT(E)-II Hyderabad, on a total income of Rs.42,25,000. Subsequently, based on the AIR information, assessment was reopened by issue of notice under S.148 of the Act by the ITO Ward-9(2), Hyderabad, on the ground that the assessee acquired RBI Bonds worth Rs. 2 crores. The Assessing Officer, who made the impugned assessment , got the records transferred from ITO Ward 9(2), and during the course of re-assessment proceedings asked the assessee to produce the copy of approval under S.10(23C)(vi) and a copy of Registration under S.12A of the Act. As the assessee could not produce the approval und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was granted approval u/s. 10(23c)(VII) W.E.F. 15.1.1964, whereas the section itself was inserted in the Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.1999. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that approval under sub-clause (vi) to the section 10(23C) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is distinct from provisions of section 88(5) of the I.T. Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that sub-clause (vi) to section 10(23C), as inserted by the Finance Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1999, states that the University or other educational institution existing society for educational purpose, and which may be approved by the prescribed authority. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal are 'on different lines', no material has been brought on record to substantiate the said contention. It is also not known whether any appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07, or whether the view taken by the CIT(A) for that year has attained finality. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT(A), which is accordingly upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected. 7. As for the grievance of the assessee in its cross-objection, we find that the proceedings for reopening of the assessment in this case have been initiated after completion of four years. That being so, such reopening could be held to be valid, only if it is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to initiate the proceedings for reopening of the assessment . Consequently, reopening of assessment in this case has to be held to be invalid and illegal. We are supported in this behalf by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Kelvinator India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Usha International Ltd. (348 ITR 485), which have been cited before us by the learned counsel for the assessee. Even though the Learned Departmental Representative, supporting the orders of the Revenue authorities, relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the cae of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. V/s. DCIT and Anr. (340 ITR 53), considering the facts and circumstances of the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
