9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 3. Because the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) being a non-speaking order, without adjudication in facts and circumstances of the case is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case is contrary to the principle of natural justice, bad in law and be quashed. 4. Because the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,508 made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged suppression of debtors without appreciating the facts and circumstances that merely because of error by ignorance in the name in the balance-sheet, i.e., Shanti Developers instead of correct being Srishti Developers. 5. Because the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 on account of unexplained creditors ignoring the facts that the assessee had received Rs. 3,00,000 vide cheque No. 292024 duly credited in the bank account. 6. Because the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, he has reason to believe that the amount of commission receipt chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 and accordingly assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has not made any addition with regard to the commission receipt from Regency Hospital Ltd. Learned counsel for the assessee has strongly argued that since the Assessing Officer has not made any addition with respect to an issue on which assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act, the assessment framed on other issues does not survive and deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has invited our attention to the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT v. Software Consultants in I. T. A. No. 914 of 2010 [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Delhi) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT in I. T. A. No. 148 of 2008 [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi). Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). 5. The learned Departmental representative, on the other hand, has s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction under section 147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. The relevant observations of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in paragraphs 18 to 20 are extracted hereunder (page 147) : "18. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom). We may also note that the heading of section 147 is 'income escaping assessment' and that of section 148 'issue of notice where income escaped assessment'. Section 148 is supplementary and complimentary to section 147. Sub- section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute the escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussion as above, he would have been justified as per Explanation 3 to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I as well." 7. Similar views were expressed by the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Software Consultants in I. T. A. No. 914 of 2010 [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Delhi), copies of which are placed on record. In this judgment also the hon'ble Delhi High Court has examined the impugned issue in the light of the judgments of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT/EPT [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC) and CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) and other judgments of different High Courts and their Lordships have held that the heading of section 147 is "income escaping assessment" and that of section 148 "issue of notice where income escaped assessment". Section 147 is supplementary and complimentary to section 148. Sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer and sub- section (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee before the Assessing Officer proceeds to assess, reassess or recompute the escaped income. Section 147 mandates recording of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
