9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t – Held that:- A variation in these two figures does not necessarily lead to escapement of income - Mere need to verify the discrepancy does not bring the matter within the scope of cases in which reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated - There is subtle, though significant, distinction between reason to believe and reason to suspect - While the former is good enough to hold that income has escaped assessment and initiate suitable remedial measures in respect thereof, the latter can, at best, be the ground to verify and examine the matter further - Mere fact that matter needs to be verified and examined further can never be a reason good enough to believe that income has escaped assessment and to invoke the reassessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring in the return of income, while the correct amount of TDS matched. The assessee also submitted a statement where the difference was identified to one of the receipts from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) towards works contract and corresponding certificate issued by them. Subsequent to the submission of the return of income, the AAI had issued a certificate dated March 11, 2008 which had brought out correct breakup of the transaction. There were minor differences between the information provided by the AAI under the above certificate and the information provided by them earlier. These were in relation to some deductions made at the time of payment, which were not included in the gross amount. The assessee also computed the effect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,29,07,837. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the legality of assessment on the ground that the notice u/s. 148 was not served on the assessee and as such the notice and the final assessment order did not have correct jurisdiction. 6. The notice u/s. 148 was issued on 20.4.2010 and was dispatched on 21.4.2010. Thereafter statutory notices were issued on 26.7.2010 and later. According to the AO, the notices were returned by the postal authorities and the assessee changed place of residence. Thereafter, a survey operation was conducted on 18.10.2011 and the correct address was located. After the survey, the jurisdiction was transferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n response to this notice. The CIT(A) further observed that the only grievance of the assessee should be that no adequate opportunity for representation was given to the assessee before completion of the assessment order. The CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the Revenue and proceeded to adjudicate the case on merits. 9. The assessee aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), came on further appeal before us reiterating the contentions submitted before the CIT(A). The learned DR filed a written submission wherein he stated as follows: 3. The Ld. CIT(A) in para no 5.4 has stated that the notice u/s 148 was served upon the assessee and so were the other statutory notices. The assessee appeared before the assessing officer only in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income has not been provided to the assessee and the assessment was finalised on 28.1.2012. Hence, we find the CIT(A) has erred in deciding the issue in favour of the Revenue. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the assessee's appeal are allowed. 11. Even though we have decided on the first two grounds that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act stating that it was validly initiated and have decided the jurisdictional ground in favour of the assessee, we shall further adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the discrepancy between the income shown as per the return of income vis-a-vis as per certificate of TDS would necessarily lead to escapement of income for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 148 of the Act. The co- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of reassessment proceedings on the facts of the instant case was devoid of legally sustainable merits - Reassessment quashed. 12. Respectfully following the above decision of the co-ordinate Bench, we hold that reopening of assessment on the basis of receipt shown in the TDS certificate is not sustainable in law. Hence we have decided on the jurisdiction ground and are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has wrongly held that the AO rightly initiated proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. We decide this issue against the Revenue. Since we have held that very jurisdiction of re-assessment u/s. 147 cannot be sustained, we refrain from adjudicating other grounds raised by the assessee. 13. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed. Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
